Logical reasoning PrepTest 153 · Section 2 · Question 8

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Politicians on the LSAT, never a good sign. Johnson quoted his opponent out of context, and when called on it, defended himself by saying the quote made her look even worse in context. But his campaign apparently doesn't really believe that, since they keep quoting her out of context even after having the opportunity to correct themselves.

Strategy Overview:
The stimulus is a collection of facts and a conclusion, so what are we missing? A rule. You can't draw much of a conclusion from facts alone, unless the conclusion is simply a restatement of those facts or a combination of a couple of facts. Start by identifying the conclusion and anticipating how you might bridge the gap from premises to conclusion. (Similar to the strategy for a Sufficient Assumption question, but for "most strongly supports" you don't necessarily have to fully prove the conclusion.)

Answer Anticipation:
We're looking for a rule that strengthens the conclusion that the campaign doesn't believe their own story. Believe is a new term in the conclusion, so we would like to see a rule that allows us to determine when someone "doesn't believe" something.

Answer Explanation:
If this rule is applied to the stimulus, we find that the campaign is still quoting their opponent out of context; therefore, according to the rule, they must believe that the out of context quote is more damaging. This makes the conclusion valid, and this answer choice correct.

Key Takeaway:
Notice that A is the only answer choice that includes the term "believe?" This may feel almost like cheating (and you do have to be carefully not to miss a synonym) but if you're looking for a rule to strengthen a conclusion, it's 100% true that a valid rule must include any new terms in the conclusion. Sometimes you get a freebie, as in this question, for remembering this law of logic.

Incorrect. This would potentially weaken the argument. It's also not relevant to the conclusion about Johnson's campaign's beliefs.

Incorrect. This could be true, and yet neither strengthen nor weaken the argument. Political campaigns do not always meet voters' expectations of them.

Incorrect. Again, this could be a true rule and yet not affect the strength of the stimulus's conclusion. Their beliefs may have little to do with whether or not they expect to be criticized.

Incorrect. This doesn't seem true, since Johnson is receiving a counter-attack right now, in this stimulus. Even if it was applied to the scenario above, it wouldn't affect the validity of the conclusion, because it's irrelevant to their beliefs about the quote.