Logical reasoning PrepTest 151 · Section 2 · Question 5

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't rely on people remembering the stories, just on being affected by them. If a voter doesn't remember the specifics for why they dislike a candidate, they can still vote against them.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
A philosophical attack ad links policy to an overarching story and context. This makes the attack emotional, which makes it more effective than going after policy details.

Answer Anticipation:
Phew, a lot of jumps here, with several intermediate conclusions.

First, the author jumps between providing story and context to emotions. While that might sound correct, there's no premise connecting them, so it should be viewed as a gap.

Second, there's no reason to believe that an emotionally compelling attack is any more likely to be effective than a rational attack. (Except our lived experience and sociological research . . . but this is the LSAT—don't assume facts not in evidence!)

Finally, there's no premise about ads attacking policy details. Maybe those can be just as emotionally compelling, or maybe they can be as effective by appealing to something other than emotions!

We'll need to stay flexible while looking through the answers since there are several potential errors in reasoning that could lead to a credited response.

Answer Explanation:
Here's an answer reflecting the gap between the last intermediate conclusion and the main conclusion. The author attempts to establish that philosophical attacks are emotionally compelling and thus more effective. If emotionally compelling ads aren't more effective than ones that aren't, then the whole argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument has a number of intermediate conclusions, and the question is asking about assumptions made by the argument, you'll need to spot assumptions between each step of the argument. Stay flexible in the answers!

Incorrect. The author assumes that philosophical ads can get at an underlying ideology by providing story and context. Story and context are both included in the same premise/intermediate conclusion, so the author doesn't assume a link from one to the other. This answer would be correct if the author linked philosophical attacks to being able to provide context and thus telling a story.

Incorrect. The argument relies on one type of attack being more compelling than another; that doesn't require voters to be uninterested in the less compelling type of attack. If this answer stated that voters are less interested in policy, then it'd be closer to a correct answer.

Incorrect. First, a certain type of attack can be more effective even if it isn't applicable in most cases. Even if most politicians don't have policies revolving around a specific ideological core, it could be most effective to attack that philosophical core when it does exist.

Second, even if most politicians don't ground their policy proposals in an overall ideological scheme, that doesn't mean an opponent couldn't formulate an attack ad as if that were true. When has the truth ever stopped a good political attack ad?