LSAT 155 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q21

LR Question 21 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Professor: It has been argued that all judges should be…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle

CONCLUSION: It is a bad idea to make judges elected positions instead of appointed.

REASONING: Judges running for election would need campaign funds, which often come in the form of donations from special interests. These contributions cause conflicts of interest for politicians, and would probably do the same for judges.

ANALYSIS: The author’s argument leads to the intermediate conclusion that elected judges may have conflicts of interest because of the campaigning. The author then concludes that judges should stay appointed instead of being elected.

The correct principle, if we were to rephrase, is probably something like “a position should not be made an elected position if the election process may produce conflicts of interest”. It has to be a principle that leads to the conclusion.

___________

1. The argument isn’t about judges avoiding conflicts of interest, it’s about not changing the position in a way that could increase the number of conflicts of interest. It’s a subtle distinction, but it’s important.
2. The author isn’t saying that special interests shouldn’t contribute. They just want to keep that out of the judge selection process.
3. The author’s argument isn’t saying which conditions are good for appointing judges. They’re arguing against elected judges.
4. The conclusion is not that other public officials should be elected. The author is just using them to illustrate.
5. CORRECT. This allows the conclusion to be drawn, and matches our prephrase pretty well.

Recap: The question begins with “Professor: It has been argued that all judges should be”. It is a Principle question. Learn how to master LSAT Principle questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.