A common misconception on the LSAT is that “principle questions” are a thing. In fact, the word “principle” appears in multiple question types which you should treat very differently. The most important thing to look for when you see the word “principle” is whether the principle points up or down. Some questions (PSAa or Rule Application questions) give us a principle in the stimulus and ask us to apply it down to the answer choices. These are akin to Most Strongly Supported questions, where we must be cautious of overstrong language and stick only to inferences supported by the stimulus.

This question (a PSAr or Find The Rule question) does the opposite: it presents a bunch of principles in the answer choices and asks us to apply them up to the stimulus in an effort to justify the argument. These are akin to Strengthen questions, where overstrong language is completely fine and we’re hoping to bridge any gaps in the argument we can find.

PSAr questions tend to follow routine patterns, and our approach can therefore be similarly routine. First, it’s critical to identify the argument’s conclusion and the premise(s) that seek to support it. In a shockingly high proportion of PSAr questions, the correct answer will take the form: Premise → Conclusion.

Like in normal Strengthen questions, though, it’s also important to note any common flaws you see, or (especially) subtle jumps from one concept to another (e.g. from talking about athletes to talking about professional athletes). Correct answers that address weaknesses like these are common as well.

At the heart of this question are two warring premises:

Activist: Zagel is unable to govern effectively.
Zagel: My resignation would make the world think our political system is unstable, which is unacceptable.

We’re choosing the lesser of two evils – if she resigns the world will think we’re unstable, and if she doesn’t resign she’ll be ineffective.

Remember now that the LSAT is a test about arguments – the connections between premises and conclusions. Our job is never to question the truth of the premises themselves, but rather to examine the link between them and the conclusion.

As it stands, then, Zagel has the upper hand – her premise includes the idea that [the world thinking our political system is unstable] would be unacceptable.

To overcome Zagel’s advantage, our Activist needs a rule that says “Governing ineffectively would be even unacceptable…er.” Here's our clean Premise → Conclusion anticipation:

If you’re comparing ineffective governance to a worldwide perception that our political system is unstable, then ineffective governance is a bigger deal.