LSAT 17 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q8

LR Question 8 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle (Strengthen)

CONCLUSION: The advocate thinks we should switch to public financing combined with a cap on individual contributions.

REASONING: The advocate reasoning this will free politicians from fund raising and also prevent large individual donors from overly influencing politicians.

ANALYSIS: Don’t just skip over answer choices like A. It’s very abstract, but the LSAT often makes the right answer hard to understand. Break it down into parts so that you can understand what it means.

___________

1. CORRECT. This is very abstract but it is correct. The benefit is that incumbent politicians could spend more time serving the public if they didn’t have to campaign for funds.
2. Terms of office don’t directly relate to the politician’s argument.
3. The advocate is actually arguing that we should make public funds available to all candidates.
4. This goes against the advocate’s argument. He argues for funding.
5. The advocate thinks everyone running for office should be eligible.

Recap: The question begins with “Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should”. It is a Principle question. Learn more about LSAT Principle questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.