Logical reasoning PrepTest 115 · Section 4 · Question 25

Incorrect. The argument is about specifically buying media exposure, but this answer is about all types of resources, so it's broader in scope than the argument and thus not necessary. This answer also brings up a necessary condition for being unfair, and the argument deals with eliminating sufficient conditions.

Incorrect. The stimulus discusses relative feelings—which candidate "most evokes" positive feelings. As such, the argument can still work even if losing candidates evoke positive feelings as long as those who spend more on TV spots evoke more positive feelings

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Voters tend to vote for the person whose image makes them happy, so election fairness laws shouldn't let someone buy more media exposure than opponents.

Answer Anticipation:
In Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions, new concepts in the conclusion are almost always related to the assumption. Here, the conclusion brings up the amount of media exposure that a candidate for office purchases, but the premises never discuss that concept.

What they do discuss is that voters vote for a candidate whose visual image evokes positive feelings. Therefore, in concluding from this that fair elections don't allow one candidate to have a lot more media exposure than another, the Commentator must be assuming that more media exposure results in positive feelings by voters when they see the candidate's image.

Since that's not established in the argument, nor is it inherently true, it's an assumption that we can look for as we go through the answer choices.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the amount of media exposure to the positive feelings that voters feel towards a candidate—the missing piece of the argument. If media exposure never increases the positive feelings voters have when seeing a candidate, then there's no reason to believe that allowing such media exposure to be purchased at unequal levels would make an election unfair, and the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Logical force is key on all questions in the LSAT, but it can be particularly helpful to focus on in Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions. Answers that are stronger than the related ideas in the stimulus will almost always be wrong, as the argument could make do with a weaker version of that answer, and thus it can't be necessary.

Incorrect. This answer is too extreme—it doesn't need to be the case that all candidates spend all available money on media buys for this argument to work, just that those with more money spend more on media buys than their opponents at times.

Incorrect. This answer is stronger than the stimulus, where it's stated that voters "tend to" elect the candidate with the most positive visual image, not that one who doesn't have such a positive effect on voters can't be elected.