LSAT 17 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q7

LR Question 7 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Campaigns for elective office should…

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The advocate’s proposal is flawed.

REASONING: The critic argues that caps will require politicians to spend time fundraising.

ANALYSIS: The critic is arguing that the advocate’s dual objectives are contradictory. A cap might reduce the influence of large donors. But politicians will have to spend more time fundraising. The advocate had claimed a cap would cause politicians to spend less time fundraising.

___________

1. The critic didn’t mention anything about the cap being subverted.
2. The critic actually implied that the two goals opposed each other. They don’t support each other.
3. CORRECT. Yes. The cap causes politicians to spend more time fundraising.
4. The critic didn’t say anything like that.
5. This is a possible objection to the advocate but it isn’t the objection that the critic makes.

Recap: The question begins with “Campaigns for elective office should”. It is a Method of Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Method of Reasoning questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.