LSAT 153 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Campaign manager: In campaign speeches, our candidate has…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle

CONCLUSION: It is justifiable to omit the bad effects of endorsed policies if you are trying to enact a positive agenda.

REASONING: Hiding bad effects improves the chances for our candidate to get elected, which in turn allows us to enact positive change.

ANALYSIS: The argument is basically saying that misinforming the public is justifiable if you are doing so in order to enact a positive agenda. The correct principle will follow a similar form of something bad being justified by something good.

___________

1. CORRECT. This is exactly what we are looking for. If this is true, then it helps justify an ethically questionable act (misleading voters) by their good consequence (enacting positive agenda)
2. This answer would condemn, rather than justify, doing something bad for the sake of something good.
3. We are trying to justify bad acts by appealing to good consequences. This statement says that good consequences can never be justified, which doesn’t help us.
4. Being trusted is irrelevant. We are looking for a principle that helps us justify misconduct.
5. We are trying to justify misinforming voters by failing to report negative effects. This statement does the opposite by emphasizing the importance of NOT misinforming voters.

Recap: The question begins with “Campaign manager: In campaign speeches, our candidate has”. It is a Principle question. Learn more about LSAT Principle questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.