LSAT 115 – Section 4 – Question 15

LSAT 115 - Section 4 - Question 15

December 2002

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:24

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 S4 Q15
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
36%
159
B
16%
156
C
44%
166
D
1%
153
E
3%
158
156
164
172
 +Hardest 146.173 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Ruth: To become a politician, a person should be required to have a diversity of experience. The more diverse one’s experience, the more one will understand the need for compromise.

Stephanie: To be worthy of public trust, it is not enough, as you suggest, that one simply have varied experience. Such a person would not necessarily be worthy of public trust.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Ruth concludes that to become a politician, someone should be required to have diverse experiences. This is because the more diverse one’s experiences, the more one understands the need for compromise.

Stephanie concludes that to be worthy of public trust, it is not enough (as she believes Ruth suggests), to have varied experience. This is because a person with diverse experiences is not necessarily worthy of public trust.

Identify and Describe Flaw
Stephanie misinterprets Ruth’s claim. Ruth said that to become a politician, one should be required to have diverse experiences. Ruth did not say that diverse experiences are sufficient to make one worthy of public trust.

A
The response simply asserts a point of view opposite to Ruth’s without giving reasons for it.
Stephanie’s point is not “opposite” to Ruth’s. Ruth’s claim is that diverse experiences should be necessary for becoming a politician. Stephanie’s point is not that diverse experiences shouldn’t be necessary; her point relates to a claim Ruth never made.
B
The response fails to provide evidence for its assumption that experience is not beneficial to the practice of politics.
Stephanie’s response does not assume that experience is not beneficial to politics. It might be beneficial; Stephanie simply believes diverse experiences are not sufficient to be worthy of public trust.
C
The response attributes to Ruth a view that is more vulnerable to criticism than any she actually expresses.
Ruth never said that diverse experiences are sufficient to be worthy of public trust. But Stephanie appears to think this is what Ruth said, and counters this misinterpreted version of Ruth’s claim. This version is easier to criticize than what Ruth actually said.
D
The response fails to make a needed distinction between personal experience and relevant professional experience.
We have no reason to think a distinction between personal and professional experience is “needed.” Both Ruth and Stephanie refer to diverse experiences. Whether such experiences need to involve personal and professional or just one of the two kinds is unknown.
E
The response fails to provide evidence for its assumption that flexibility is unimportant in the practice of politics.
Stephanie never assumes that flexibility is unimportant in politics. She simply says that diverse experiences are not sufficient to be worthy of public trust.

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