LSAT 129 – Section 3 – Question 22

LSAT 129 - Section 3 - Question 22

June 2009

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:53

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
PT129 S3 Q22
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Link Assumption +LinkA
Math +Math
A
13%
163
B
64%
167
C
12%
160
D
8%
159
E
3%
157
151
160
169
 +Hardest 146.07 +SubsectionMedium

To win democratic elections that are not fully subsidized by the government, nonwealthy candidates must be supported by wealthy patrons. This makes plausible the belief that these candidates will compromise their views to win that support. But since the wealthy are dispersed among the various political parties in roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population, this belief is false.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author believes that nonwealthy candidates in democratic elections that aren’t fully subsidized by the government will not compromise their views in order to win the support of wealthy patrons. This is based on the fact that wealthy people are distributed among different political parties in equal proportion to their proportion among the overall population.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that winning the support of wealthy people might require changing one’s own views, even if one can find wealthy people in one’s own political party. For example, a Democratic billionaire’s views might be different from a Democratic candidate. That candidate may then need to change her views to win the billionaire’s support.

A
the primary function of political parties in democracies whose governments do not subsidize elections might not be to provide a means of negating the influence of wealth on elections
The purpose of parties irrelevant. We’re concerned with whether having the wealthy in various parties shows that the nonwealthy don’t need to change their views to get a wealthy person’s support. Why parties exist doesn’t affect whether a candidate might have to change her views.
B
in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, positions endorsed by political parties might be much less varied than the positions taken by candidates
This possibility shows why a nonwealthy person might need to change their views to win a wealthy person’s support. Even if a wealthy person is part of the candidate’s party, that doesn’t mean the views of the party or the wealthy person in the party are shared by the candidate.
C
in democracies, government-subsidized elections ensure that the views expressed by the people who run for office might not be overly influenced by the opinions of the wealthiest people in those countries
The argument concerns democratic elections that are NOT fully subsidized by the government. Even if countries with subsidized elections ensure against being “overly influenced” by the wealthiest, that doesn’t suggest anything about countries without subsidized elections.
D
in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, it might be no easier for a wealthy person to win an election than it is for a nonwealthy person to win an election
The argument concerns whether a nonwealthy candidate needs to change her views to win support of a wealthy person. Whether an election is easier to win for a wealthy person than for a nonwealthy person has no impact on whether a nonwealthy person needs to change her views.
E
a democracy in which candidates do not compromise their views in order to be elected to office might have other flaws
The argument concerns whether a nonwealthy candidate needs to change her views to win support of a wealthy person. Whether there are other flaws in a democracy has no bearing on whether a nonwealthy candidate must change her views.

Kudos to the LSAT writers. They've out done themselves with this question. I hope you didn't spend too much time getting this one wrong.

The passage is tough to understand. The writers make us think that a problem was solved when really, the problem still exists, just pushed one layer down. Crafty, crafty!

Let's pretend you're a painter name van Gogh. You're fucking awesome and you know it. Problem is, no one else knows it. But, alas, despite your god like skills with a brush, your body still needs mortal nourishment, clothing, and shelter. That means you need money. That means (because this is the stupid 1800's), you need to find a wealthy patron... who wants you to paint his ugly children. You'd like to not compromise your artistic genius, to not sell out, so to speak. But of course, that's a highly probably occurrence since no wealthy patron recognizes or agrees with your godly aesthetics.

Here's where the LSAT writers come to "the rescue". They say, "wait, the wealthy are dispersed among the various schools of art in roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population". So no worries van Gogh. Just join up with one of those schools of art and you're all set. You know, maybe that one over there, on the corner with the flashing neon sign.

You see how this doesn't solve your problem? Previously, it's the patrons that you'd have to pander to. Now, it's the schools of art you'd have to pander to. What's the difference? You have to pander either way. The problem was not solved, just pushed one layer down.

But, of course, it certainly felt like it was solved when you were reading the original passage didn't it? Good job, LSAT writers.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 129 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply