Logical reasoning PrepTest 129 · Section 3 · Question 22

Incorrect. The argument assumes that political parties do end up with wealthy donors that can fund candidacies, but it doesn't matter to the argument whether this is a "primary" function or an ancillary one.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Wealthy donors are split between the political parties proportional to the overall population, so candidate's won't compromise their views to get these donors' support.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion is about the actions of candidates running for office—what will they do to get the wealthy to donate to them? Turns out, according to the author of this argument, that they won't have to compromise their views to get that money.

Why not? Well, the donors are split between the political parties in roughly the same proportion as the overall population is. So the parties themselves have a healthy donor pool that matches the overall population, and thus the parties don't have to compromise their views in order to get wealthy donors—the party already has plenty of wealthy donors supporting them.

However, note the shift there—this argument's conclusion is about the candidates, not the political parties. There's no indication that all candidates are members of a political party, or that someone can run for office outside of a political party and still get wealthy donors. It's possible that, in order to get the support of the wealthy party donors, a candidate would have to compromise her views to bring them in line with one of the political parties. The argument overlooks this possibility when it shifts from a premise about parties to a conclusion about candidates, and the correct answer should reflect that shift.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the potential discrepancy between parties and candidates that the argument ignores. If the parties have platforms that are much less varied than the candidates, then a candidate might have to compromise her values to join a party and thus get the support of their wealthy donors.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever the LSAT is talking about groups of people and individuals, you should take note and track any shifts. While that type of language usually leads to a part/whole flaw which isn't present here since the candidates aren't established as belonging to a political party, the argument is still jumping from a premise about a group (the parties) to a conclusion about individuals (the candidates).

Incorrect. The argument is about elections that are not fully subsidized by the government, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument is about what nonwealthy candidates would need to do to run, so the comparative ease of actually getting elected is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument is about whether democracies without fully subsidized elections have a given flaw, not whether they're the best system or one that is better than alternatives, so this answer about other flaws is out of scope.