7Sage LSAT

Self-study
Group courses
Tutoring
Admissions consulting
Discussion & resources

Explanations

PT103.S3.Q23

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2
Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3
Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4
Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

PrepTest 103 - Section 3 - Question 23

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Whenever she considers voting in an election to select one candidate for a position and there is at least one issue important to her, Kay uses the following principle in choosing which course of action to take: it is acceptable for me to vote for a candidate whose opinions differ from mine on at least one issue important to me whenever I disagree with each of the other candidates on even more such issues; it is otherwise unacceptable to vote for that candidate. ██ ███ ████████ ███████ █████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████

Kay's Voting Principle

Kay's principle applies when she's voting in an election and there's at least one issue important to her. It has two parts:

Acceptable: If Kay disagrees with a candidate on at least one important issue, it's acceptable to vote for that candidate as long as she disagrees with each of the other candidates on an even greater number of important issues.

Unacceptable: The word "otherwise" here means "in any situation where the acceptable condition isn't met." So if Kay disagrees with a candidate on at least one important issue, but there's at least one other candidate she disagrees with on the same number or fewer important issues, it's unacceptable to vote for that candidate.

In simpler terms, Kay's principle is all about counting disagreements. It's acceptable to vote for a candidate only if she has a higher number of disagreements with each other candidate.

Now let's apply this to the election. There are three candidates, only one important issue, and only Medina agrees with Kay on it. (Here, "shares" means "holds the same opinion," not "makes her opinion known.") So Kay disagrees with Legrand on 1 issue, disagrees with Norton on 1 issue, and disagrees with Medina on 0 issues.

Testing Each Candidate

Let's test each candidate against Kay's principle:

Legrand

Disagrees with Kay on: 1 issue

To be acceptable, Kay must disagree with each other candidate on more than 1 issue.

Medina: 0 disagreements ✗
Norton: 1 disagreement ✗

Unacceptable

Norton

Disagrees with Kay on: 1 issue

To be acceptable, Kay must disagree with each other candidate on more than 1 issue.

Medina: 0 disagreements ✗
Legrand: 1 disagreement ✗

Unacceptable

Medina

Disagrees with Kay on: 0 issues

The principle only addresses candidates Kay disagrees with on at least one important issue. Since Kay agrees with Medina, the principle has nothing to say about voting for Medina.

Not unacceptable

So voting for Legrand and voting for Norton are unacceptable.

Analysis by Kevin_Lin

Show answer

23.

According to the principle stated ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ████████

it is acceptable ███ ███ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ██ ██ ████████████ ███ ███ ██ ████ ███ ██████

It's unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand. Kay disagrees with Legrand on 1 issue, but for it to be acceptable, she'd need to disagree with each other candidate on more than 1 issue. She doesn't, so voting for Legrand is unacceptable.

the only unacceptable ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ███ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ███ ██ ████ ███ ███████

This is correct. The principle makes it unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton, because for each of them, Kay can't satisfy the requirement of disagreeing with every other candidate on a greater number of issues. (Since there's only 1 important issue, it's impossible to disagree with anyone on more than 1 issue.) And the principle doesn't make it unacceptable to vote for Medina, because Kay doesn't disagree with Medina on any important issue.

it is unacceptable ███ ███ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██████████

The principle doesn't make it unacceptable for Kay to vote for Medina. Remember, the principle kicks in only when Kay disagrees with a candidate on at least one important issue. Since Kay agrees with Medina on the one important issue, the principle is silent about voting for Medina. So voting for Medina might be acceptable.

the only unacceptable ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ████ ███ ██████

This gets the result exactly backwards. The principle doesn't declare it unacceptable to vote for Medina. But the principle does declare it unacceptable to vote for Legrand and Norton.

it is acceptable ███ ███ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██████████

It's unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton. For each of them, Kay disagrees on 1 issue, but she can't meet the requirement of disagreeing with every other candidate on a greater number of issues.

Difficulty

Question

50% of people who answer get this correct

This is a very difficult question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 155

167

75% 179

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Inference

Stems that ask which answer choice can be "properly inferred" from the claims in the stimulus. Near-synonymous with Must Be True, with a slightly lower standard of support.

Stimulus Tags

Conditional reasoning

Stimuli that feature conditional and set logic (e.g. A → B, A is true, therefore B is true).

Eliminating options

Stimuli that reason by laying out a set of options, ruling some of those options out, then concluding we must choose the remaining option(s).

Rule-application

Stimuli that involve the application of a general rule to specific scenarios.

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

164

50%

169

164

24%

165

16%

165

Question history

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!