QUESTION TEXT: Political leader: In this political dispute, our side…
QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: It will be good for us if we show a desire to compromise.
REASONING: If the other side likes our proposal, we’ll have a compromise. If they reject our proposal, we’ll look good.
ANALYSIS: This argument correctly sets up a binary situation: there are only two possibilities. What the author is trying to do is show that our side will benefit either way. But the political leader left out one thing: do we want a compromise. There are some situations when a compromise is disastrous. So to prove the argument correct, we have to show that a compromise will be a good thing.
This question is an example of a concept shift. “Reaching a compromise” has positive connotations, but compromise isn’t the same thing as a benefit. Several answers focus on the opposition. These are irrelevant – the leader’s argument is that their side will benefit regardless of what the opposition does.
- This sounds good, but it’s not the same thing as benefitting from a compromise. You can desire something that doesn’t benefit you. You might have eliminated this because it wasn’t necessary. If so, that was the wrong standard – this is a sufficient assumption question. This could have been right had it said something like “The leader’s side desires the benefits of compromise”.
- This is irrelevant. The argument is that the leader’s side will benefit whether or not the opposition agrees to compromise.
- CORRECT. This fixes the argument. Now we know the party will benefit if an agreement is reached (because this answer says so) and will also benefit if no agreement is reached (because the argument says so.)
- The argument is about the benefit to the leader’s party. Whether the opposition benefits is irrelevant. The leader’s argument is that they’ll win whether or not there’s a compromise.
- This doesn’t matter. The leader’s argument is that their side will benefit whether or not the opposition decides to compromise.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly