LSAT 115 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q15

LR Question 15 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Ruth: To become a politician, a person should be required…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

ANALYSIS: Ruth concludes that a politician needs to have a diversity of experience. Stephanie argues that a diversity of experience is not sufficient for one to become a politician.

Ruth never claimed that a diversity of experience was sufficient. Stephanie is attacking a claim Ruth never made.

___________

1. Stephanie gives a reason: such a person would not necessarily be worthy of public trust.
2. Stephanie did not claim that experience was not beneficial. She merely argued it wasn’t enough.
3. CORRECT. Bingo. Ruth claimed it was necessary. Stephanie attacked the view that it was sufficient and that nothing else was needed. That is a much harder view to defense.
4. Stephanie is arguing that any and all types of experience are not sufficient on their own.
5. Stephanie said nothing about flexibility. It can’t be her flaw if it isn’t what she said.

Recap: The question begins with “Ruth: To become a politician, a person should be required”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.