Logical reasoning PrepTest 121 · Section 1 · Question 24

Incorrect. 16% said they'd donate to the party, and if they're distinct from the 26% who said that they'd join, _ of those people would have to follow through in order to miss the 4% needed to hit 30%. That's way more than "some of those," so this answer falls short of describing a flaw in the argument.

Incorrect. This answer is very close to a correct answer. However, the Journalist does take this possibility into account by concluding that the party is "unlikely" to be viable. That leaves open the possibility that it'll be viable with a lower level of support, so it doesn't fail to consider this answer.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't tie the amount of money donated to the viability of the party but rather the level of support through people joining and donating. The total donated might be irrelevant; it may be all about the number of votes. As such, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't overlook these two details—it raises both of them. This answer is flawed in that it doesn't notice that the stimulus specifically notes that the support must be in the form of enrollment or donation, and the majority who said they'd support the party didn't say they'd do so through one of those two means.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Recent poll of eligible voters about the formation of an education-focused political party:
(1) Over 50% support the idea
(2) 26% would join it
(3) 16% would donate to it
Parties historically need 30+% of eligible voters to join or donate to be viable, so the education-focused political party is unlikely to be viable.

Answer Anticipation:
"[O]verwhelming" historical evidence is pretty strong, and the conclusion limits itself to saying that the party is "unlikely" to be viable, so we're not expecting the flaw to be related to that statement being wrong. We should keep that possibility in the back of our minds, but let's assume for a minute that that premise is strong enough to support the conclusion.

So to show that a political party isn't viable in the long-term, as the conclusion states, it would need to be shown that the education-focused party doesn't have at least 30% of eligible voters ready to join or donate to it.

The survey results showed that 26% of people would join it, and 16% of people would donate to it. That adds up to 42%, which is over 30%, right? Right—that's the type of math we don't mind doing on the LSAT!

Since the Journalist relies on under 30% of eligible voters would join or donate to this party, she must be assuming that the 16% who are donating are a part of the 26% of eligible voters who would join the party (or, at least, almost all of them are) so that those two numbers can't be added together. Since the question stem leads us into the answer by asking us what the argument fails to consider, we should look for an answer stating that the argument fails to consider that a significant number of eligible voters said they'd donate to the party but not join it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the 16% and 26% might be different people, thus allowing those numbers to be added together to break that 30% threshold. That's the possibility that the argument fails to consider, so this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever the LSAT brings up a few percentages that might end up being added together, always consider whether or not the percentages definitely represent distinct groups, or whether there may be some members shared between the groups. This is very much related to the overlapping set questions and quantifier inference questions.