LSAT 21 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q4

LR Question 4 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Campaigning for election to provincial or state office…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Officials who are trying to get re-elected will often ignore the interests of their local constituents.

REASONING: If you campaign for election, you have to please national party officials.

ANALYSIS: The argument assumes that you can’t please national party officials without serving your constituents interests. It might be possible to do both.

___________

1. CORRECT. If this isn’t true, then it’s hard to see how catering to national officials means that you will ignore the needs of your constituents.
2. The argument only says that candidates must “frequently” cater to national officials. It might be possible to win election without catering.
3. This isn’t necessary. The conclusion only says that candidates will “often” ignore their constituents when they cater to national officials. It didn’t say they always will ignore them.
4. The argument only claimed that candidates will ignore the interests of their constituents while they are campaigning. They might become better representatives once they win and they no longer have to care about pleasing national officials.
5. The argument isn’t hurt if some politicians decide not to run for re-election. The stimulus is only talking about politicians who do try to get re-elected.

Recap: The question begins with “Campaigning for election to provincial or state office”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Necessary questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.