Logical reasoning PrepTest 129 · Section 1 · Question 14

Incorrect. not Legislators concerned with careers → not Legislation benefit constituents. The stimulus notes that the legislators here are concerned with their careers, so this answer doesn't apply to the current situation.

Incorrect. The success of the legislature is out of scope here since it's unmentioned and isn't inherently related to any concepts in the argument.

Incorrect. Adherence to the laws is out of scope of the argument—especially since such a law would have to be passed first, and the stimulus is about the process of passing them.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Enact laws that benefit constituents → Consider consequences
But debates on legislation cause repugnance or enthusiasm for it
Therefore - Contemporary legislatures not Enact laws that benefit constituents

Answer Anticipation:
One of the hardest parts of this argument is figuring out its structure—what's a premise, and what's a conclusion? However, knowing common patterns on the LSAT can help here.

The argument starts with a conditional statement. This could be a conclusion, but in Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions, a conditional will generally chain together or serve as a principle that applies to a specific situation. Since the second statement is the negation of the sufficient condition, it can be justified by the contrapositive of the opening conditional, suggesting that we're in the latter pattern.

The rest of the argument goes on to describe a problem with the current legislative process, which suggests that it supports the inability of contemporary legislatures to enact laws benefiting consumers, confirming that as the conclusion and the principle/application pattern as the reasoning structure here!

When that pattern applies, the argument is usually flawed in that it fails to establish the situation meets the sufficient condition. Here, since we're applying the contrapositive, we should check to see if the situation meets the negation of the necessary condition:
not Consider consequences → not Enact laws that benefit constituents

The premises don't meet this condition—instead, they establish that legislators considering laws feel either repugnance or enthusiasm for those laws. Therefore, the argument is assuming that those feelings preclude considering the consequences of a piece of legislation, so let's find an answer making that connection.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects what we learn about the current legislature to the triggering condition of the principle's contrapositive. The current legislators present legislation in polemical terms, leading to repugnance or enthusiasm for legislation. If that precludes legislators from considering the consequences of actions, the first sentence guarantees that they can't pass legislation that benefits constituents, as the conclusion states. If feeling that way still allows legislators to consider the consequences of legislation, then the argument falls apart, as there's no longer any reason to believe that the legislators won't do so.

Key Takeaway:
A common argument pattern in Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions is the application of a principle to a specific case. When there's a single conditional premise, this pattern usually applies, and the argument is usually flawed because it fails to establish the specific situation meets the sufficient condition. The correct answer in these cases connects what is known about the specific situation to that sufficient condition.

Incorrect. What matters is that the legislators don't consider the consequences of legislation that they feel repulsed by or enthusiastic about, not that those feelings are responsible for the failure to consider the consequences.