PT 21 Sec. 3 #4

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

PT 21 Sec. 3 #4

Postby Ragged » Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:59 pm

Confused by "frequently", "often" and "sometimes". I went with (C) since state official frequently cater to national officials, which means not all the time. And if no state official who caters to national officials can serve interests of local constituency, then it would mean that most of them do not serve interests of local constituency. (A) just didn't seem strong enough.

harut44
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: PT 21 Sec. 3 #4

Postby harut44 » Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:52 pm

Frequently- means most of the time in this case. So most of the time when officials run for office they have to cater to the interests of national party officials. As the stimulus progresses it says that the people running for reelection often fail to serve the interests of their constituents.

You are valid to assume that some of those running for reelection have to serve the need of the national party leaders and that they all serve their local constituents (because they're currently in office). The stimulus says that often times they fail to serve the needs when running for office. So you are safe to say that the assumption made here is that while they are serving the needs (some of them) of the national party leaders the needs of the local constituents cannot be fulfilled at the same time. This may occur sometimes and is an assumption on which the argument depends in order to make it valid.

Let me know if I wasn't clear on anything.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: PT 21 Sec. 3 #4

Postby Ragged » Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:14 pm

harut44 wrote:Frequently- means most of the time in this case. So most of the time when officials run for office they have to cater to the interests of national party officials. As the stimulus progresses it says that the people running for reelection often fail to serve the interests of their constituents.

You are valid to assume that some of those running for reelection have to serve the need of the national party leaders and that they all serve their local constituents (because they're currently in office). The stimulus says that often times they fail to serve the needs when running for office. So you are safe to say that the assumption made here is that while they are serving the needs (some of them) of the national party leaders the needs of the local constituents cannot be fulfilled at the same time. This may occur sometimes and is an assumption on which the argument depends in order to make it valid.

Let me know if I wasn't clear on anything.



Thanks, for your help.

I would appreciate a more clear explanation why C is not correct, and what makes A better than C.

The way I read it was that many, but all, state officials have to cater to national officials in order to get elected. So if, as C states, no state official can effectively serve the interests of local consituency if he caters to national officials then often local interests will not be served.

The only difference is in degree. C is way stronger than A, but I thought A was not strong enough. Not sure if that makes sense.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, bcapace, Google [Bot], lawcapture, mrgstephe, njames1961, theGrinch and 8 guests