Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 2 · Question 16

Incorrect. The argument isn't over who's a more or less important agent of change. While the argument does assume that individuals outside of academic settings have a "special role," that's not necessarily saying they're the most important people involved.

Incorrect. There's no indication that the academics who formulate these theories have any goal other than to come up with a theory. They could leave the implications of these theories to others and only care about the theoretical, not the practical.

Incorrect. The argument mentions two things being important to effecting change through a political theory—the theory itself, and it being conveyed in non-convoluted/alienating language. There's no indication that these two things have to be developed separately—it's possible that the "special role" of individuals outside of a university is to collaborate with the academics as they develop their theories to make them more accessible.

Incorrect. Who gains from anything is out of scope of this argument—it's about how to effect social change, not what benefits result from it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Theory - Spreading political theories can cause social change
Problem - Political theories are written in universities, and so have convoluted and alienating language
Conclusion/Solution - Those outside the university have a role in "translating"

Answer Anticipation:
This argument starts with a theory, but one that can be put into practice—spreading political theories can cause social change. However, it then transitions into a specific logic pattern that we see on the LSAT repeatedly—a Problem/Solution argument.

Here, the Political Scientist says that there's a problem with political theories effecting change—they're written in universities, and thus the language they're written in is convoluted and alienating to people who would bring about these changes.

However, she presents a solution (and, here, the solution is her conclusion)—that these individuals outside of the university have a "special role" in rewriting the language to be less convoluted and alienating and more accessible and clear.

Note that the Scientist says that this is a "special role"—it's one that these outsiders must do, and the individuals inside the university can't. In carving out a "special role" for these outsiders, the Scientist is ignoring the possibility that individuals inside a university can't go through this process themselves. After all, it's possible that they can write their theories in "academic" language, but then rewrite them in less convoluted terms for distribution.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the academics can't (or won't) themselves write the theories in a straightforward way, which is the assumption required for there to be a "special role" in doing so for outsiders. If this task can be done by academics, and they'd be willing to, then there's no special role for outsiders, throwing the Political Scientist's solution out.

Key Takeaway:
Watch out for strong language in the conclusion of arguments. Here, it was a bit hidden in calling the role for outsiders "special," but it was still setting it up as a role that academics couldn't or wouldn't do.