Q13 - James: Many people claim that

[hwsitgoing]

Hi,

I'm having a hard time eliminating A as a wrong answer on this one. If Reed's opponents are also discussing complex issues, then wouldn't this prove that Reed's popularity would have to be due to something else since he is not unique in discussing these complex issues?

Thanks!!

[timmydoeslsat]

Hi,

I'm having a hard time eliminating A as a wrong answer on this one. If Reed's opponents are also discussing complex issues, then wouldn't this prove that Reed's popularity would have to be due to something else since he is not unique in discussing these complex issues?

Thanks!!

We are looking to strengthen Maria's counter to James.

James' argument core can be seen as this:

Television commercials for Candidate A discuss complex campaign issues.
+
Candidate A is most popular candidate

--->Voting public able to understand complex campaign issues

Before we even look at Maria's statements, we can see that James' argument lies upon an assumption.

James is assuming that people who watch the television commercials for Candidate A are understanding those complex issues presented in the commercial.


Maria's argument core can be seen as this:


Candidate A strikes the voters as most competent and trustworthy candidate

--->Candidate A is not popular because of discussion of complex campaign issues


We want to bolster Maria's conclusion, which is that Candidate A is not popular because of discussion of complex campaign issues.

Choice (D) gives us more than we could have hoped for!

(D) tells us that polling data reveals that most voters cannot identify what Candidate's A positions are on complex campaign issues.

If most of the voters cannot do that, then that weakens the idea that this is why Candidate A is popular.

It does not destroy the idea, but it helps to weaken it.

Choice (A) is not a good answer because we do not know that "some of the same issues" = complex campaign issues.

B) This does not weaken the idea that Candidate A's popularity cannot be attributed to discussion of complex campaign issues. Oversimplifying complex campaign issues could help with this idea in fact. Shows a possible reason why voters are latching on to him as a candidate.

C) Does not address source of Candidate A's popularity.

E) Premise booster for Maria. Is not discussing source of popularity.

[bbirdwell]

We want to bolster Maria's conclusion, which is that Candidate A is not popular because of discussion of complex campaign issues.

This understanding of our task here is essential to working the problem.

Maria says Reade is NOT popular because of the issues.

(D) says "people don't even understand the issues."

And there ya go.

(A) is super weak. "some of the same issues" is way too vague and distant to affect the argument.

[sch6les]

I cannot for the life of me figure out why (D) is correct.

We are trying to show that Reade's discussion of complex campaign issues is not the reason why he is popular.

(D) states that voters cannot identify Reade's positions on campaign issues.

It's very possible that voters cannot identify Reade's position on campaign issues because they cannot understand what he is discussing. If they cannot understand what he is discussing, then his discussion cannot be the reason why he is popular. This would certainly support Maria.

But there is any other number of reasons why voters cannot identify Reade's position on campaign issues.
- Maybe he discusses the issues without having a position.
- Maybe he discusses the issues but isn't clear enough for people to be able to discern his position.

If either of these two are the explanation, then Maria's conclusion is not supported.

HELP.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The task as defined by the question is to find an answer choice that "most supports" Maria's conclusion. We do not need to prove it to be absolutely true. Answer choice (D) does at least make Maria's conclusion more likely to be true and so is the correct answer.

Hope that helps!

[richietrentie]

I've eliminated (A) through (C) because of the above clarifications, but I can't quite get rid of (E).

If a strengthen question doesn't require that you justify the argument via the answer choice per se, but simply asks that you do the bare minimum required to strengthen the argument in some way, then how does bolstering a premise not strengthen the argument?

I appreciate that the Manhattan books indicate that a 'premise booster' is not ever going to be the correct answer to a strengthen question, but I don't understand why.

Thanks in advance.

[maryadkins]

Bolstering a premise could be the answer to a strengthen question. It's just that you need to pick the answer choice that strengthens the argument MOST, and often that won't be a premise booster"”often there will be a choice that links the premise to the conclusion, at least a little bit. But sure, if the BEST choice (remember, you're being asked for what "most" supports) is a choice that beefs up a premise, there you go.

(E) isn't the best choice here. First of all, "some" is weak. That could mean two people. Second of all, maybe even though that's true, they still like Reade because of his stance on complex campaign issues. (D), however, knocks out that possibility because MOST (note: not "some") voters don't even know his stance on the issues.

Hope this helps!

[513852276]

James's argument does not exclude two situations you mentioned, e.g. the public is unable to evaluate complex issue because the candidate doesn't make their statement clear. In stimulus, there are two possible explanation for Reade's popularity, i.e. his discussion of complex issue or simply trustworthy. To strengthen "simply trustworthy", we need a answer to eliminate "discuss complex issue" or to further demonstrate "simply trustworthy". Answer choice E only demonstrate "trustworthy", but just "to some voters" and not exclusive, i.e. "simply". Answer choice D eliminate "discuss complex issue", but we need to make assumption that "if understand complex issue, then can identify position".

I cannot for the life of me figure out why (D) is correct.

We are trying to show that Reade's discussion of complex campaign issues is not the reason why he is popular.

(D) states that voters cannot identify Reade's positions on campaign issues.

It's very possible that voters cannot identify Reade's position on campaign issues because they cannot understand what he is discussing. If they cannot understand what he is discussing, then his discussion cannot be the reason why he is popular. This would certainly support Maria.

But there is any other number of reasons why voters cannot identify Reade's position on campaign issues.
- Maybe he discusses the issues without having a position.
- Maybe he discusses the issues but isn't clear enough for people to be able to discern his position.

If either of these two are the explanation, then Maria's conclusion is not supported.

HELP.

[olaizola.mariana]

I am with sch6les on this one – the assumption that needs to be strengthened is that Reade is most popular because of his DISCUSSION of complex issues (not because of Reade's POSITIONS on those issues). By saying that Reade’s competitors also discuss some of those issues, answer (A) allows us to see that the discussion of issues is not the DETERMINING factor in voters’ selection of candidate. It could be that all candidates discuss complex issues – including Reade – but that’s not what determines voters’ choice.

As for answer (D), I also agree with sch6les that the way Reade discusses issues might be very appealing to voters, even though his position may not be clear to them. For example, he might show an inclination for open-mindedness and compromise, rather than intransigence in his discussion of complex issues (totally conceivable as those issues are complex after all!).

[NichP73]

This is one of those few questions where the LSAT just didn't get it right. While the above are trying to explain the answer in a relatively reasonable way, the reason that D is such a bad correct answer is in the verbiage using 'popular' and 'most.' Take this example:

There is a primary election and there are 11 candidates. Reade has 30 percent of the vote, and the other 10 have 7 percent of the vote each.

In this scenario, Reade is the most popular candidate, which is what the argument explicitly addresses.
Most people (70 percent) could therefore not know what Reade's policies are, and therefore do not vote for Reade. However, He could still be the most popular because of his discussion of complex campaign issues, as those 30 percent of people theoretically appreciate this discussion.

I get that strengthen answers don't prove the argument, and that A also wouldn't strengthen. They could all discuss the same issues but chose Reade based on trustworthiness.

But Neither does D strengthen, as shown above.

[HughM388]

I am with sch6les on this one – the assumption that needs to be strengthened is that Reade is most popular because of his DISCUSSION of complex issues (not because of Reade's POSITIONS on those issues). By saying that Reade’s competitors also discuss some of those issues, answer (A) allows us to see that the discussion of issues is not the DETERMINING factor in voters’ selection of candidate. It could be that all candidates discuss complex issues – including Reade – but that’s not what determines voters’ choice.

As for answer (D), I also agree with sch6les that the way Reade discusses issues might be very appealing to voters, even though his position may not be clear to them. For example, he might show an inclination for open-mindedness and compromise, rather than intransigence in his discussion of complex issues (totally conceivable as those issues are complex after all!).

I tend to agree with you, Mariana Olaizola, and that is very well put. (Is that a northern Spanish or Basque name, btw?)

Voters may not at all understand what Reade is talking about in his campaign ads, but they could still be attracted by Reade's willingness to engage with complex issues and because Reade, as a result, simply appears to be wicked smaht (and here I'm appealing to the caricature of the unwashed public who will anoint a candidate on the basis of talking the lingo and appearing smaht; but, as you say, those issues are complex, and those people vote).

Reade could be speaking a completely different language, but as long as the voters perceive Reade to be "tackling the tough issues" (perhaps the only thing worse is when politicians talk about "reaching across the aisle"; vomit in mouth) the voters would lap it up, at the direct expense, according to James of the stimulus, of the other candidates, who are neglecting to tackle those tough issues…unless, wait for it, those other candidates are also tackling the tough issues in their campaign ads! In which case there is no better support for Maria's argument that Reade definitely isn't differentiating themself from the other candidates on the basis of discussing complex issues in their campaign ads.

And the test writers' attempt at sleight of hand by mentioning "complex campaign issues" in the stimulus and then leaving "campaign issues" in (A) notably unqualified as such is rather ham-handed.

I chose the correct answer, but only because I discerned the test writers' obtuseness in devising their answer choices.