LSAT 110 – Section 3 – Question 12

LSAT 110 - Section 3 - Question 12

June 2001

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

Target time: 1:32

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 Q12	+LR	Most strongly supported +MSS Fill in the blank +Fill Conditional Reasoning +CondR	A 12% 163 B 2% 162 C 78% 167 D 8% 163 E 0% 166	129 146 163	+Medium	145.976 +SubsectionMedium

Politician: My opponents argue that the future of our city depends on compromise—that unless the city’s leaders put aside their differences and work together toward common goals, the city will suffer. However, the founders of this city based the city’s charter on definite principles, and anyone who compromises those principles betrays the city founders’ goals. What my opponents are advocating, therefore, is nothing less than betraying the goals of the city’s founders.

Critic: I’m afraid your argument is flawed. Unless you’re assuming that the differences among the city’s leaders are differences of principle, your argument depends on a misleading use of the term _______.

Summary

The opponents of the politician call for compromise. They say that the city will suffer unless the city’s leaders put aside their own differences and work toward common goals. The politician claims that the opponents advocating for the betrayal of the city founders’ goals, since anyone who compromises the principles on which the city’s charter was founded would betray the city founders’ goals.

The critic calls the politician’s argument flawed because of the misleading use of a particular term.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The blank should be filled with the term that the politicians is using in a misleading way. The word is “compromise.” The opponents advocate for compromise regarding the city leaders’ differences. That’s not the same as compromise regarding the principles underlying the city’s charter.

betray

Unsupported. The word “betray” is used in only one way and is not misleading.

common

Unsupported. The word “common” is used in only one way and is not misleading.

compromise

Strongly supported. The opponents advocated for “compromise” concerning the city leaders’ differences. The politician interpreted “compromise” as a reference to how we should treat the principles underlying the city charter. This changed the meaning of “compromise.”

principles

Unsupported. “Principles” was used in only one way and was not misleading.

opponents

Unsupported. “Opponents” was used in only one way and was not misleading.

LSAT PrepTest 110 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course