LSAT 106 – Section 3 – Question 14

LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 14

June 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:22

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT106 S3 Q14
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Most strongly supported +MSS
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
71%
168
B
0%
153
C
2%
162
D
10%
164
E
16%
164
143
156
168
 +Harder 148.198 +SubsectionMedium

Kevin’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

If citizens do not exercise their right to vote, then democratic institutions will crumble and, as a consequence, much valuable social cohesion will be lost. Of course, one person’s vote can only make an imperceptible difference to the result of an election, but one must consider the likely effects of large numbers of people failing to vote. An act or omission by one person is not right if such an act or omission done by large numbers of people would be socially damaging. Organized society would be impossible if theft were common, though a single dishonest act on the part of a single person is likely to have an insignificant effect upon society.

Summarize Argument
The author wants to convince us that we should vote. That conclusion isn’t outright stated, but the rest of the argument supports it. The author tells us that if no one voted, democracy would fail and society would crumble. Why is that relevant when considering a single vote? Because any action which would be harmful if lots of people did it is also wrong for any individual to do. This principle is supported with the analogy of dishonesty: not too impactful on a small scale, but we still consider it wrong.
Broken down, the logic looks like: actions that would be bad for everyone to do are wrong for individuals; not voting is such an action. So (implied), not voting is wrong.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion in this argument is implied, not explicitly stated: citizens should exercise their right to vote.

A
People in a democracy should not neglect to vote.
This is exactly the author’s point. Even though it’s implied rather than stated, the premises establish that it’s wrong not to vote. In other words, people should vote (or “not neglect to vote”).
B
Dishonest acts and failure to vote are equally damaging.
The argument does not support drawing an exact equivalence between dishonesty and not voting. Dishonesty is an analogy used to support the rule about when relatively low-impact actions can still be wrong. All we know is that single similarity with not voting.
C
There is a risk that individual antisocial acts will be imitated by others.
The author never talks about imitation. The principle in the argument is that individual actions can be wrong depending on the possible consequences if everyone did the same. It’s hypothetical, not a claim that everyone will do the same.
D
A single person’s vote or wrongful act can in fact make a great deal of difference.
This is not stated in the argument. The author is only talking about individual acts that don’t make much difference on their own.
E
Large-scale dishonesty and neglect of public duty will be destructive of democratic and other societies.
This claim about dishonesty is only used as an analogy to support the author’s rule about when low-impact actions might still be wrong. This supports other parts of the argument, and is not supported itself, making it a premise.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply