PT40 - LR1 - Q13 Forum

[Nulli Secundus]

Discussion between James & Maria,

Q. Stem: Most supports Maria's counter?

Credited response: D
My response: A

Maria says its not because of Reade's discussion of complex campaign issues. I chose A, since if his opponents also talked about some of the same, the differentiating factor is obviously something else. According to Kaplan, his opponents' actions are out of scope.

I get why D is correct, but wording of the question fails, Maria says voter choose Reade because he is competent and trustworthy, would you think someone is competent or would you trust that person if you cannot identify his position on important issues? (Uhhh...I dont know if he is pro-choice or pro-life, but I think he is competent and I trust him?!!?!)

Somebody can make it a little more understandable for me?

[sgtgrumbles]

For a mayoral race trust and positions could reasonably be separate. For an office like that where competent management and honest management of resources are the most relevant factors to a job, the exact ideology of a candidate might not be as important as these factors. That's not an airtight argument, but it at least helped me see the two as being separate. FWIW, I made the same mistake as you, though. Only in hindsight did I reason like this.

[Sandro]

I just took this test today and put E ... havent reviewed it yet lol

[Sandro]

nvm

[PostHawk]

Discussion between James & Maria,

Q. Stem: Most supports Maria's counter?

Credited response: D
My response: A

Maria says its not because of Reade's discussion of complex campaign issues. I chose A, since if his opponents also talked about some of the same, the differentiating factor is obviously something else. According to Kaplan, his opponents' actions are out of scope.

I get why D is correct, but wording of the question fails, Maria says voter choose Reade because he is competent and trustworthy, would you think someone is competent or would you trust that person if you cannot identify his position on important issues? (Uhhh...I dont know if he is pro-choice or pro-life, but I think he is competent and I trust him?!!?!)

Somebody can make it a little more understandable for me?

I think you're looking at it from too much of a real world perspective and not a LSAT world perspective... James' argument says that people are voting for Reade because he talks about complex issues. Maria's argument is that it isn't because of the complex issues but rather his perceived competency and trustworthiness . Answer choice D, if true, strengthens Maria's argument because it shows that the voters don't care about the complex issues.

Answer choice A is out of scope because it deals with the opponents and not Reade but it doesn't strengthen Maria's argument that Reade is getting votes because he is more competent and trustworthy (it could be true that Reade is perceived more competent than his opponents while discussing the issue but once again it's out of scope).

Hope that helped

[whymeohgodno]

I put E on this question I think.

The one where it says "some" people find him trustworthy.

I still don't get why the answer choice is wrong. Couldn't "some" mean all? Wouldn't that make the answer potentially stronger than the correct answer D even though D uses "most"?

[Sandro]

I think E is wrong because its just a restatement of Maria's conclusion - if her conclusion is that Reade strikes voters as the most competent and trustworthy - then she is implying atleast some of the voters think this way? I dont know. It just doesnt strengthen the "its not complex issues, but rather voters find him competent and trustworthy" argument by saying some voters find him that way. The reason for popularity is the point of contention here and E misses that.

[Sandro]

Kaplan says E is wrong because of some, as in It could be just one person who thinks this way and that wouldn't strengthen. realm of possibilities

[GoldenGloves]

I just did this exam yesterday too. This is the only question I missed on the section, with the same mistake as OP. To me, it's clear now that (A) can't be correct because there is no mention in this answer choice that the issues discussed by his opponents are also complex. It may very well be that Reade also discusses some simple issues, and it is these issues that his opponents also discuss. So I guess the key is making note of the wording "some of the same issues" in the answer choice.

[cord]

I also got this wrong when I first looked at it but during review found it to be much easier.

It's best to think of this problem as an argument or dispute about causation. James is essentially saying that having complex campaign issues is the cause of Reade being the most popular. Maria does not disagree about this premise about popularity but she has a different cause in mind -- his competence and trustworthiness. 

Since this is a strengthen question -- we can prephrase and expect the answer to validate in some way Maria 's cause or invalidate James ' cause.

D does just this : if voters can't identify Reade's position then it cannot be responsible -- the issues and complexity-- for his popularity.

The reason why A isn't the best answer is it doesn't deal with validating Maria or invalidating James in terms of causation. Also note that 'some' on the lsats could just mean one or two -- we do not know if the opponents are discussing some complex issues or non complex ones -- we should not make unwarranted assumptions. 

Let me know if this helps .

[Nulli Secundus]

Thanks everyone, you were very helpful.

[EarlCat]

Discussion between James & Maria,

Q. Stem: Most supports Maria's counter?

Credited response: D
My response: A

Maria says its not because of Reade's discussion of complex campaign issues. I chose A, since if his opponents also talked about some of the same, the differentiating factor is obviously something else. According to Kaplan, his opponents' actions are out of scope.

"Outside the scope" is Kaplan's stock explanation for wrong answers. It's a lazy writer's expression that doesn't provide any useful information.

The first problem is your characterization of Maria's conclusion. Whenever two people are speaking on the LSAT, the second person's purpose is almost invariably to disagree with the first person's conclusion. James's (implied) conclusion is that the voting public IS able to evaluate complex campaign issues. He does this by assuming that Reade's popularity is due to his discussion of the issues (and in turn by necessarily assuming that the public evaluates this discussion).

Maria purpose is to disagree with James's conclusion, not just his assumption. (This does not mean that this is where the point-of-issue arises--parties can disagree about subsidiary conclusions as well, but those are colored by the ultimate conclusions.) Thus, Maria's conclusion is not simply that Reade's popularity isn't due to his discussion of the issues--that's subsidiary--but that the voters are not necessarily able to evaluate those issues.*

Getting to A, even if Reade's opponents discussed ALL of the same complex campaign issues, it says nothing about the point at issue, whether Reade is popular because voters evaluate the issues he discusses.

D works because it shows the voters can't even identify (let alone evaluate) Reade's position on the issues despite all his talk about them.

* If the dispute were merely about whether the popularity stems from the discussion of complex issues, all five answers would be wrong. I could know (in fact the stim tells us) that Reade discusses complex issues and I could favor him for that fact alone without actually knowing what issues he discusses.

would you think someone is competent or would you trust that person if you cannot identify his position on important issues?

You don't keep up with politics much do ya.

[EarlCat]

I think E is wrong because its just a restatement of Maria's conclusion - if her conclusion is that Reade strikes voters as the most competent and trustworthy

That's not her conclusion, it's a premise.

Kaplan says E is wrong because of some, as in It could be just one person who thinks this way and that wouldn't strengthen. realm of possibilities

Kaplan is wrong. Even if all voters considered him competent and trustworthy, that doesn't say why they favor him--perhaps they favor him because he discusses complex campaign issues. More importantly, it doesn't say whether voters can evaluate complex issues.

[Nulli Secundus]

Thanks Earlcat, that answer was perfect.