LSAT 137 – Section 4 – Question 20

LSAT 137 - Section 4 - Question 20

October 2012

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:57

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
PT137 S4 Q20
+LR
Most strongly supported +MSS
Fill in the blank +Fill
Analogy +An
A
0%
151
B
0%
151
C
15%
158
D
2%
155
E
82%
165
141
149
158
 +Medium 146.883 +SubsectionMedium

A salesperson who makes a sale does not change the desires of the customer. Rather, the salesperson finds out what these desires are and then convinces the customer that a particular product will satisfy them. Persuading people to vote for a politician to whom they are initially indifferent is not significantly different. After discovering what policies the prospective voter would like to see in place, one tries to _______.

Summary
The author tries to draw an analogy between convincing people to vote for a politician and how a salesperson convinces people to buy a products. A salesperson doesn’t change the person’s desires, but rather convinces the person that a product will satisfy the person’s existing desires. Since convincing people to vote for a politician is analogous, after finding out what policies a person supports, one should try to convince the person that a particular politician is most likely to get those policies enacted.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
We’re looking to complete the analogy. The missing piece is the idea that one tries to convince a person that a particular politician is most likely to get the person’s preferred policies enacted.

A
show that the opponents of the politician in question do not favor all of those policies
Unsupported. The saleperson analogy doesn’t involve pointing out the shortcomings of competing products. So a conclusion concerning the shortcomings of other politicians doesn’t fit.
B
disguise any difference between the policies the politician supports and the policies supported by other candidates
Unsupported. The salesperson analogy doesn’t involve making people think one product is similar to others. It’s about convincing someone that a particular product will do what the customer wants.
C
convince the voter that the policies favored by the politician in question are preferable to those favored by the voter
Antisupported. The salesperson analogy involves finding out what the customer desires, not trying to change those desires. So the conclusion would not involve trying to change what policies a person prefers.
D
demonstrate that the politician is a person of outstanding character and is interested in some of the same issues as the voter
Unsupported. The conclusion should be about showing that a politician will get a person’s preferred policies enacted. The character and interests of a politician are not the same as the policies that politician will get enacted.
E
persuade the voter that voting for the politician in question is the best way to get these policies adopted
Strongly supported. The salesperson analogy involves getting a person to think a product will satisfy the person’s desires. So, the conclusion should be about getting a person to think a politicians will get the person’s preferred policies enacted.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 137 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply