Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 1 · Question 12

Incorrect. The argument is about a leader who has concern for the welfare of the people, so it doesn't matter if that's always the same or if it changes, as long as the leader in question takes that welfare into account.

Incorrect. This is such a tempting answer choice, and if you were down between this and the correct answer choice—(D)—you'd be in good company. At that point, you should compare the two to see the difference. That answer talks about failure and a lack of concern being associated with each other. This answer talks about a lack of concern leading to failure. In noting that difference, you'd need to go back to the stimulus to see which one is correct. And since the stimulus uses correlative language—"always been during"—and not causal language as this answer choice does ("led to"), this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. There's no citation for the historical information—it's simply stated as fact—so there's no hint of bias or unreliability.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Duke Ð Successful rule → Virtuous leader with concern for people
History Ð Every fallen Acredian government had a vicious ruler
Conclusion Ð The Duke was right to say concern for people necessary for successful rule

Answer Anticipation:
Both the Duke and the Commentator use conditional language here (Duke: "only"; Commentator: "necessary"). You'd be right to think that there's a good chance that there's a reversal or negation, and it should have been the first thing you checked. However, in this case, one of those flaws isn't present. The Duke does treat concern for the welfare of the people as necessary to successful rule, and the conclusion doesn't reverse that. We'll need to look elsewhere for the flaw.

What does the Commentator use to back up the conclusion that concern for the people is necessary for a successful rule? The historical record. That record shows that each failed government had a ruler not concerned with the welfare of the people. In other words, the argument concludes that concern is necessary for success because whenever concern wasn't present, there was failure. That is the contrapositive of the Duke's rule, so there's not a conditional logic flaw.

However, it is stating that historical examples are enough to justify a general rule. It's possible that, while failure has always coincided with a ruler who lacked concern for the people, there just haven't been enough examples to prove a general rule. This argument generalizes from some samples without any indication that it's valid to do so. The correct answer should reflect that.

Answer Explanation:
If you were down between this and the strongest trap answer choice—(B)—you'd be in good company. At that point, you should compare the two to see the difference. This answer talks about failure and a lack of concern being associated with each other. That answer talks about a lack of concern leading to failure. In noting that difference, you'd need to go back to the stimulus to see which one is correct. And since the stimulus uses correlative language as this answer choice does ("is associated with"/"always been during") and not causal language as that answer choice does ("led to"), this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Two things.

First, when you're down to 2 answers, they're usually somewhat related. When that happens, identify what's different about them and work from there.

Second, the difference between correlative, conditional, and causal language is important. Here, the correct and trap answers were separated by the difference in causal and correlative language. It's important to distinguish between these concepts since the LSAT will test your ability to do so!

Incorrect. The argument relies on concern for the well-being of the people, which can be determined via the actions taken by the ruler, so the argument isn't assuming this.