QUESTION TEXT: Pundit: Grenier will almost certainly not be…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify
CONCLUSION: Grenier almost certainly won’t be elected.
REASONING: Voters will see Grenier as insincere. She changed her mind once.
ANALYSIS: This question tests your ability to weed out fluff. The middle part of the question talks about employee wages and Grenier changing her mind. While interesting, the only thing that matters is that Grenier changed her mind. The specifics of what she changed her mind about aren’t structurally relevant.
On a principle/justify question, you must strengthen the link between the evidence and the conclusion. The author has stated, as fact, that voters will view Grenier as insincere. To support the conclusion, we can show that voters won’t elect someone they view as insincere. (Because maybe voters don’t care!)
- CORRECT. This links the evidence to the conclusion.
- This contradicts the argument. The author stated, as fact, that voters will perceive Grenier as insincere, because she changed her mind.
- This hurts the argument. This principle helps show how someone will be elected. We’re trying to prove that Grenier won’t be elected.
- Same as C. This principle gives a reason someone will be elected. But we’re trying to show that someone won’t be elected.
- The pundit has already shown that voters will question Grenier’s beliefs. We don’t need to prove that. Also, we don’t know what voters believe on the wage issue.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly