Meaning of “Phenomenon”

Hello @connordelacruz, Good question! You are going to see this word frequently, so let's make sure you know what it means in the context of the LSAT. A phenomenon is just an event. It is something that occurs. The phenomenon is not something that we try to dispute. It is a fact, not an argument. Often, it is something that an author will try to explain. This is a very common type of stimulus involving a scientist, researcher, psychologist, etc. A phenomenon will be presented: "The population of sparrows in my yard has declined 50% in the last week." More information will be given: "Last week, my neighbor bought a cat." A hypotheses will be made (this is the conclusion): "Therefore, the cat is probably eating the sparrows." The attempt to explain a phenomenon is the conclusion. As for this question: "People tend not to reelect inactive politicians." This is a phenomenon/premise! They can often be the same thing. It is just something that happens. The first part of A is correct, but unlike my example, the author does not try to explain this phenomenon. This is why A is incorrect. Rather, the author makes a conclusion about the implications of this phenomenon. What does it mean? It means that voters re-elect politicians whose behavior they resent. The role of the sentence in question is best described by answer choice B.

Wow awesome! This is a really helpful explanation. So just to clarify then, a phenomenon will only ever be background information or a premise and never a conclusion, correct?

@connordelacruz, Correct, it is always a fact and never an argument.

So I thought the phenomenon explained by the argument was the first line. And that the argument in fact an explanation of this. So that the last line was a subsidiary conclusion. However, after reading through this explanation is the first line properly identified as a principle/general claim instead of a phenomenon ?

I am a little confused on how the passage does not explain the phenomenon that "People tend not to reelect inactive politicians". wouldn't the explanation be that this happens because they resent them ?

That's a good question! I would argue that the confusion is not an explanation as it seems nonsensical. If we have a fact that people don't elect inactive politicians, and explanation would look like voters think that inactive politicians are lazy or corrupt. To say that they elect people who they resent actually deepens the question of why they don't elect inactive politicians.