LSAT 148 – Section 4 – Question 09

LSAT 148 - Section 4 - Question 09

December 2016

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

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
PT148 S4 Q09
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
4%
156
B
8%
155
C
3%
156
D
0%
146
E
85%
164
140
148
156
 +Medium 147.694 +SubsectionMedium

Pundit: It is good to have national leaders voted out of office after a few years. The reason is that reforms are generally undertaken early in a new government. If leaders do not act quickly to solve a problem and it becomes an issue later, then they must either deny that there is a problem or deny that anything could have been done about it; otherwise, they will have to admit responsibility for the persistence of the problem.

Summarize Argument
The pundit concludes that it’s a good thing to vote out national leaders every few years because reforms are usually undertaken early in an administration. If a government doesn’t make those reforms early on, they’ll be forced to either admit a mistake, deny a problem, or abrogate responsibility later on.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is about the value of voting out leaders: “It is good to have national leaders voted out of office after a few years.”

A
If national leaders who fail to solve problems are voted out of office after a few years, new leaders will be more motivated to solve problems.
This doesn’t appear in the pundit’s argument and therefore can’t be the main conclusion. We don’t know if new leaders will be more motivated to solve problems when national leaders are voted out.
B
National leaders who stay in power too long tend to deny responsibility for problems that they could have dealt with earlier.
This is a premise that the pundit uses to show why it’s good to vote national leaders out every few years. If the leaders simply deny responsibility for problems, they won’t solve them. This is why new leaders are a good thing.
C
National leaders are most likely to undertake reforms early in a new government.
This is a premise that the pundit uses to show why voting out national leaders is a good thing. Once a government has been around for a while and made their initial reforms, they have limited options for reforms down the road.
D
National leaders who immediately respond to problems upon taking office should be given enough time to succeed at solving them.
This doesn’t appear in the pundit’s argument and thus can’t be a main conclusion. The pundit isn’t arguing about how much time governments should be given, but rather what voters should do every few years.
E
National leaders should be removed from office every few years by the voting in of new leaders.
The pundit argues that it’s a good thing to vote out national leaders every year so that new ones can replace them and make the reforms an incumbent government is less likely to make. The pundit’s stance that “it is good” is equivalent here to “should,” since both are recommending a course of action.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 148 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply