LSAT 150 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q5

LR Question 5 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Pundit: Clearly, the two major political parties in this city…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The parties are sharply divided on issues.

REASONING: The last four elections were all separated by less than 1% of the vote.

ANALYSIS: This argument assumes that because votes are close, parties are sharply divided. But this really makes no sense. If both parties were exactly the same, you would expect the elections to be super close! So we can’t assume that close elections mean a sharp division on issues.

___________

1. This argument doesn’t confuse cause and effect.
    
   Example of flaw: The parties are sharply divided on issues because they always passionately disagree with each other at debates.
2. The argument isn’t saying that sharp division is a bad thing at all!
    
   Example of flaw: The political system needs to change in this city because the parties are sharply divided on the issues.
3. The conclusion here isn’t a restatement of a premise.
    
   Example of flaw: The parties disagree on most issues. Therefore, they are sharply divided on issues.
4. It’s true that the argument doesn’t compare this city with other cities. But this isn’t a flaw in this case. The argument isn’t saying the parties are more or less sharply divided than in other cities.
5. CORRECT. See analysis above.

Recap: The question begins with “Pundit: Clearly, the two major political parties in this city”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.