LSAT 110 – Section 3 – Question 14

LSAT 110 - Section 3 - Question 14

June 2001

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:33

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
PT110 S3 Q14
+LR
Argument part +AP
A
15%
164
B
65%
168
C
1%
159
D
2%
162
E
17%
163
142
157
173
 +Harder 145.976 +SubsectionMedium

People’s political behavior frequently does not match their rhetoric. Although many complain about government intervention in their lives, they tend not to reelect inactive politicians. But a politician’s activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose enforcement affects voters’ lives. Thus, voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.

Summarize Argument
The author tells us that what people say about politics often contradicts their political behavior. The argument defines these concepts: what people say is that they want less government intervention, but what they do is vote out inactive politicians. The author tells us that what politicians do is pass laws that intervene in voters’ lives. We then get a sub-conclusion: “voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent,” meaning that people vote for active politicians who interfere with their lives, which they don’t like. This all supports the claim that people’s political talk and behavior differ.

Identify Argument Part
The claim that people tend not to reelect inactive politicians is a factual premise that supports a sub-conclusion (that voters reelect politicians they resent), which in turn supports the main conclusion.

A
It describes a phenomenon for which the argument’s conclusion is offered as an explanation.
The claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians is not explained by anything else in the argument. It’s just stated as a stand-alone factual claim.
B
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.
This is an accurate description of the claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians. The claim helps to support the idea that voters reelect politicians they resent, which is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion that political talk and behavior differ.
C
It is offered as an example of how a politician’s activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose enforcement interferes with voters’ lives.
The author never offers an example of how politicians’ main activity is to pass laws that interfere with people’s lives. Also, the claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians is a distinct factual statement from the interference claim.
D
It is a generalization based on the claim that people complain about government intervention in their lives.
The claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians is not based on the claim that people complain about government intervention. They’re two totally separate statements.
E
It is cited as evidence that people’s behavior never matches their political beliefs.
The author does not claim that people’s political behavior never matches their beliefs, only that it sometimes doesn’t.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 110 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply