LSAT 21 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q1

LR Question 1 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists…

QUESTION TYPE: Main Point

CONCLUSION: It is wrong for political commentators to use personal attacks against opponents.

REASONING: People realize that politicians’ personal attacks will stop after Election Day. But political commentators don’t stop their commentary. They should be having a long term debate about policy and ideas.

ANALYSIS: This is an OK argument. It’s not clear why politicians should be allowed to engage in silly mudslinging rather than debate, but the argument makes a good point about commentators. They don’t stop their attacks with Election Day.

___________

1. The main point is about columnists, not politicians.
2. CORRECT. It might be okay for politicians, but commentators shouldn’t use personal attacks.
3. The stimulus hasn’t said if editorialists criticize commentators. It’s only said they criticize politicians.
4. The argument didn’t say what the purpose of debate is. It might be something else, such as deciding what the best policy for the country is.
5. The argument says that voters don’t have to worry about the attacks politicians make. They will end on Election Day.

Recap: The question begins with “When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists”. It is a Identify The Conclusion question. Learn how to master LSAT Identify questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.