LSAT 145 – Section 2 – Question 15

LSAT 145 - Section 2 - Question 15

December 2015

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:05

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
PT145 S2 Q15
+LR
Sufficient assumption +SA
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
10%
157
B
4%
157
C
77%
165
D
6%
153
E
3%
154
144
152
160
 +Medium 145.859 +SubsectionMedium

Live Commentary

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

Political leader: In this political dispute, our side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise with the opposition. If the opposition responds positively, then a compromise will be reached. If they do not, then they will be held responsible for the failure to reach a compromise and our side will benefit.

Summary
The author concludes that our side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise with the opposition. Why? Because of the following:
If the opposition responds positively, a compromise will be reached.
If the opposition does not respond positively, our side will benefit.

Missing Connection
Think about the options if we show a desire to compromise — either the opposition will respond positively, or they won’t. We know from the second premise that in the case they won’t, our side will benefit. But in the case that they do respond positively...all we can conclude is that a compromise will be reached.
Is a compromise to our side’s benefit? We don’t know. So to make the argument valid — to show that no matter how the opposition responds, our side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise — we want to establish that if a compromise is reached, our side will benefit.

A
The political leader’s side has a desire to compromise with the opposition.
(A) doesn’t establish that a compromise is to our side’s benefit. So it’s possible that if the opposition responds positively, we won’t necessarily benefit.
B
The opposition is rarely willing to compromise with the political leader’s side.
(B) doesn’t establish that a compromise is to our side’s benefit. So it’s possible that if the opposition responds positively, we won’t necessarily benefit.
C
The political leader’s side will benefit if a compromise is reached.
(C) allows us to infer that if the opposition responds positively, our side will benefit. If we add (C) to the premises, no matter whether the opposition responds positively or negatively, our side benefits. This establishes that our side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise.
D
The opposition would benefit from showing a desire to compromise.
(D) doesn’t establish that a compromise is to our side’s benefit. So it’s possible that if the opposition responds positively, we won’t necessarily benefit.
E
The opposition will compromise if the political leader’s side shows a desire to compromise.
(E) doesn’t establish that a compromise is to our side’s benefit. So it’s possible that if the opposition responds positively, we won’t necessarily benefit.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 145 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply