LSAT 115 – Section 2 – Question 10

LSAT 115 - Section 2 - Question 10

December 2002

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:52

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
PT115 S2 Q10
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
1%
154
B
2%
154
C
90%
162
D
2%
157
E
5%
155
124
135
147
 +Easier 148.811 +SubsectionMedium

Claude: To introduce greater public accountability into French foreign-policy decisions, France should hold referenda on major foreign-policy issues. Election results are too imprecise to count as a mandate, since elections are decided on multiple issues.

Lorraine: The general public, unlike people in government, is unwilling or unable to become informed about foreign-policy issues. Therefore, the introduction of such referenda would lead to foreign-policy disaster.

Summarize Argument
Lorraine concludes that introducing referenda in France would be a disaster for foreign policy. This is because the general public is, and will continue to be, uninformed on foreign policy.

Notable Assumptions
Lorraine assumes that it’s preferable to give power to a small group of people who lack a mandate than to an ignorant general public. Even if the public knows nothing about foreign policy, governmental foreign policy could also be an utter disaster. This would mean that referenda are no worse than leaving things up to the government.

A
The public would become better informed about an issue in foreign policy if a referendum were held on it.
This weakens Lorraine’s argument. She claims referendums shouldn’t happen because people are uninformed, but people would inform themselves if referendums were to happen.
B
Not every issue would be subject to referendum, only the major outlines of policy.
The general public doesn’t know anything about foreign policy. Lorraine’s not saying they only lack the specifics.
C
Decision by referendum would make the overall course of policy unpredictable, and countries friendly to France could not make reasonable decisions based on a consistent French line.
This strengthens the claim that referendums would be a “disaster” for French foreign policy. France’s allies want predictable policy, but referendums would make policy unpredictable.
D
Requiring a large minimum number of voters’ signatures on a petition for a referendum would ensure that many people would consider the issue and treat it as important.
Like (A), this weakens Lorraine’s argument. The public would have to become informed for referendums to take place.
E
Elections decided mainly on foreign-policy issues have perhaps constituted ratifications by the public of past decisions, but certainly not judgments about future issues posing new problems.
This isn’t talking about referendums. We don’t care.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 115 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply