PrepTest 141

[lcid:3663] Prep Test 141 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Clearly, a democracy cannot Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions

Answer choices

  1. A
    All societies that have Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. The premises already connect to establishing something about a thriving democracy, so this answer choice doesn't fill in the missing gap. This answer is a negation of the conclusion.
  2. B
    If an electorate has Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer is a reversal of one of the conditional premises.
  3. C
    A democracy will thrive Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer is a negation of the first conditional statement.
  4. D
    A democracy cannot thrive Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. The stimulus never mentions exposure to biased information—just access to unbiased information. The negation of that also doesn't guarantee exposure to biased information—not having access to unbiased information could follow from having no information about the government! Since this answer raises a concept that isn't mentioned in the stimulus, it's out of scope.
  5. E
    Without effective news media, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    Correct. Argument or Facts:
    Argument

    Valid or Flawed:
    Flawed

    Question Type:
    Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

    Stimulus Summary:
    not Knowledgeable electorate → not Democracy thrives
    Knowledgeable electorate → Access to unbiased info about government
    Therefore: not Effective news media → not Democracy thrives

    Answer Anticipation:
    Diagramming out the statements is the first step to tackling this question efficiently.

    First, we should see if we can combine any statements. The two premises share a term, and they'll chain together if we take the contrapositive of either. Let's use the conclusion to see what matches and doesn't, and use that to decide which to take the contrapositive of! Doing so highlights that the first conditional has an overlap, but the second doesn't, so we should take the contrapositive of the one that doesn't already line up:

    not Access to unbiased info about the government → not Knowledgeable electorate

    Now, let's combine the premises into a chain:

    not Access to unbiased info on gov't → not Knowledgeable electorate → not Democracy thrives

    And looking at the conclusion, we can see that this chain builds to the necessary condition there, but there's a gap between the chain and the conclusion's sufficient condition that the correct answer will need to bridge:

    not Effective news media → not Access to unbiased info on gov't
    Access to unbiased info on gov't → Effective news media

    Answer Explanation:
    This answer connects the necessary elements to allow the conclusion to follow from the premises. The conclusion featured a new term—Effective news media—that was a shift from the related term in the premises—Access to unbiased information. In bridging this gap, the answer justifies the conclusion.

    Key Takeaway:
    Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions that feature conditional logic can be something that you drill until you can fly through. By diagramming out the conditionals, chaining them together, and seeing where the gaps are, you can have a very specific anticipation to apply to the answer choices, and then fly through them efficiently. There's nothing better than getting question #24 right in 60 seconds!

What this tests

Discussion