QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify
ARGUMENTS: The activity says Zagel should resign because they can’t govern effectively.
Zagel says they should stay, because a resignation would make the rest of the world disrespect the country.
ANALYSIS: We’re supposed to support the activist’s argument. They’ve only given one piece of evidence: Zagel can’t govern effectively.
So, to strengthen the activist we should say “Can’t govern –> should resign”.
- The activist doesn’t talk about political stability, or even about whether the vote was rigged. They only say there was the perception that the vote was rigged.
- This fails to address the situation. In this case, a resignation would presumably hurt stability.
- This isn’t what the activist says! Their point was the inability to govern is what requires a resignation.
- This doesn’t match what the activist says. They didn’t say there was rigging. They said there was a belief in rigging, and that this belief made governing impossible.
- CORRECT. This answer directly addresses both arguments. The president said reputation was important. The activist said ability to govern was important. This answer says that, between the two considerations, ability to govern is more important.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly