LSAT 145 – Section 4 – Question 09

LSAT 145 - Section 4 - Question 09

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: 0:59

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 S4 Q09
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
7%
159
B
3%
155
C
2%
156
D
87%
165
E
1%
151
136
145
155
 +Medium 148.528 +SubsectionMedium

Live Commentary

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

Joshi is clearly letting campaign contributions influence his vote in city council. His campaign for re-election has received more financial support from property developers than any other city councilor’s has. And more than any other councilor’s, his voting record favors the interests of property developers.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Joshi’s vote is being influenced by campaign contributions. This is based on the fact that Joshi’s re-election campaign has received more money from property developers than any other city councilor’s campaign. In addition, Joshi’s voting record favors property developers’ interest more than does the voting record of any other city councilor.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that Joshi’s favorable voting record for the property developers is a result of campaign contributions from the developers. But we don’t know which came first. It’s possible the developers contribute to Joshi because of Joshi’s votes. This opens the possibility that Joshi’s votes aren’t influenced by the contributions; he might be voting favorably to the developers for other reasons.

A
takes for granted that because certain events occurred sequentially, the earlier events caused the later events
The author doesn’t argue that Joshi is being influenced by campaign contributions because his votes occurred after the contributions. (In fact, we don’t know whether the votes occurred after the contributions.)
B
confuses one thing’s being necessary for another to occur with its being sufficient to make it occur
The argument isn’t based on conditional reasoning, so there is no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.
C
makes a moral judgment when only a factual judgment can be justified
The conclusion is not a moral judgment. A claim that someone is influenced by campaign contributions is simply a claim about cause and effect. It doesn’t involve a moral judgment.
D
presumes that one thing is the cause of another when it could easily be an effect of it
The author assumes that the contributions are a cause of Joshi’s votes that are favorable to property developers, but these contributions could be a result of Joshi’s votes. Maybe Joshi voted favorably first, and the contributions followed.
E
has a conclusion that is simply a restatement of one of the argument’s stated premises
(E) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion — that contributions influence Joshi’s vote — isn’t restated in the premises. None of the premises assert that Joshi’s vote is affected by contributions.

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