Q13 - Editorial: In rejecting the plan

[b91302310]

The correct answer is (B). However, how to know the president made the decision out of "wisdom"? I think this is quite subjective.

Also, why is answer choice (D) incorrect? It is still possible that the president made the decision not out of courage but the pressure of the president's own party, isn't it?

Could anyone explain it?

Thanks!

[aileenann]

You might think "wisdom" is quite subjective, but remember that we have to take each argument on its own terms. Yes, we should notice where there are missing logical steps (assumptions), but sometimes we have to be prepared for premises or conclusions we wouldn't necessarily be comfortable with in the real world but that are valid on the LSAT (for example, if you see a premise that says "Linda is a better basketball player than Katie." - absent some extreme examples this is probably a subjective statement too, but on the LSAT we treat it like a fact).

So I think here the author saying that objective/good citizens will applaud this action is a good enough basis to say the author is thinking of this as indicating the wisdom of a certain decision.

As far as (D), I think it says the opposite of what you are saying. (D) says the argument overlooks the possibility that the president's own party opposed his measure. If (D) said the opposite of that - that the president's own party was pressuring him or at least strongly supportive of the measure - there would then be a basis to undermine this argument by saying that this was a partisan rather than a wise or courageous act, but we don't have that here.

I hope this helps. Let me know what you think

[tamwaiman]

I know (B) is the best, but can someone help to find a mistake in (A)?

I assume the "a quality that is merely desirable in a political leader" is courage, and is it too extreme to infer the courage is merely desirable?

Thank you.

[chike_eze]

With this question, I think it helps to focus more on the structure of the Author's argument, without getting too bogged down in the detail of the author's evidence.

Essentially, the argument is:

Conclusion: The President acted in the best interest of the nation by rejecting the plan.

Why? Well he made the decision even though he knew it would be met by fierce opposition bla-bla-bla..
> but...why is his decision in the nation's best interest?

Well, If you value the nation's success over partisan interests, then you'll applaud the President's courage
> Okay... but you still didn't tell us why his decision is.. O never mind

You see, the author is basically saying X = Y because X is credible, courageous etc... but why is X = Y??

(B) calls the author out! Who cares if the President is courageous or not in making the decision? For all we know, his decision was courageously stupid! Why is his decision in the best interest of the country?

(A) "quality desirable vs quality essential" -- This focuses on the evidence, which does not support the conclusion -- who cares about the President's supposed courage? The question that is not answered by the evidence is: how does rejecting the plan lead to acting in the best interest of the country? That is the flaw in the argument -- not necessity vs. desirability of his assumed courage.

[dean.won]

Isnt the argument assuming that only the opposition is against his plan when he says "narrow partisan interests"

[Mab6q]

I dont see how E would nor work. If citizens thought the parliament's plan did not serve partisan interests, then wouldn't that make the argument seem problematic. Is it wrong because it's too strong and the author doesnt need to assume all plans.

[deedubbew]

Is the last question a sub-conclusion, while the first sentence is the main conclusion?

[rinagoldfield]

Another tough question. There’s a lot to parse through in the argument core, but here’s my boiled-down version of it:

Premise: Citizens who care about the nation’s well-being will find this decision courageous

Conclusion: The decision is good for the nation

The main gap here is between "X is courageous" and "X is good for the nation."

Unfortunately, (B), the right answer, doesn’t get at the gap in exactly the same language as the argument core. It’s not what I call a "cinderalla" (perfect fit) answer choice. However, (B) discusses the collapse between something being considered "courageous" and that thing being considered "wise." "Wise" may seem out of scope, but we can link the notion of wisdom to goodness and excellence. A wise decision is a good one.

(A) discusses a blurring between "necessary" and "desirable" qualities of leadership. The argument isn’t worried about this. (A) is out of scope.

(C) isn’t an assumption. The argument explicitly concerns those citizens who prioritize national well-being over partisanship. It doesn’t matter how many or how few of these citizens exist, or how many of them have no partisanship at all. (C) also doesn’t touch anything relating to conclusion (was the decision good for the nation?)

(D) brings up members of the president’s party, who are irrelevant.

(E) is tempting, but doesn’t articulate an assumption. We know the following premises:
1. The president is rejecting a proposal from parliament.
2. This decision courageously ignores partisanship.
Does it matter whether ALL proposals from parliament are highly partisan? No. We know this one probably is. Who cares about the other ones.

Hope this helps.

--Rina

[WaltGrace1983]

Couldn't you also knock out (E) using a negation test? (E) says that the argument "depends on" on the assumption that any plan proposed by parliament will only serve narrow partisan interests. In other words, IF its a plan proposed by parliament THEN it will only serve partisan interests. How would we negate this? We would say that there are some plans proposed by parliament that don't serve ONLY narrow partisan interests. Let's plug it in.

President's decision was met with fierce opposition and widespread disapproval abroad
+
All citizens who aren't narrowly partisan will applaud courageous action
+
There are some plans proposed by parliament that don't serve ONLY narrow partisan interests
→
President clearly acted in the best interests of the nation

Looking at (E) in this light makes it seem super out of scope. The point is that the final sentence only matters because of the word "courageous." The final sentence is really laying it on thick by saying, "hey! LSAT taker! This is a courageous action! Look! It's courageous! Thus, it must be in the best interests of the nation!" This is really all we should care about, the gap between "courageous" and "best."

For the same reasons we eliminated (E), we really can eliminate (C). We don't care much about the proposal by the parliament because it is only detracting from the real issue at hand!

As for (D), it doesn't really support or overlook the possibility. It really doesn't give any information on either side. Was there strong opposition from the president's party or wasn't there? We really don't know.

For (A), we are not talking about necessary qualities for effective political decision-making. Simple as that.

[mkd000]

Another tough question. There’s a lot to parse through in the argument core, but here’s my boiled-down version of it:

Premise: Citizens who care about the nation’s well-being will find this decision courageous

Conclusion: The decision is good for the nation

The main gap here is between "X is courageous" and "X is good for the nation."

Unfortunately, (B), the right answer, doesn’t get at the gap in exactly the same language as the argument core. It’s not what I call a "cinderalla" (perfect fit) answer choice. However, (B) discusses the collapse between something being considered "courageous" and that thing being considered "wise." "Wise" may seem out of scope, but we can link the notion of wisdom to goodness and excellence. A wise decision is a good one.

(A) discusses a blurring between "necessary" and "desirable" qualities of leadership. The argument isn’t worried about this. (A) is out of scope.

(C) isn’t an assumption. The argument explicitly concerns those citizens who prioritize national well-being over partisanship. It doesn’t matter how many or how few of these citizens exist, or how many of them have no partisanship at all. (C) also doesn’t touch anything relating to conclusion (was the decision good for the nation?)

(D) brings up members of the president’s party, who are irrelevant.

(E) is tempting, but doesn’t articulate an assumption. We know the following premises:
1. The president is rejecting a proposal from parliament.
2. This decision courageously ignores partisanship.
Does it matter whether ALL proposals from parliament are highly partisan? No. We know this one probably is. Who cares about the other ones.

Hope this helps.

--Rina

Rina - I'm having trouble with the argument core here. I broke the argument down in in a different way than you (what you put as premise, I put as conclusion and what you put at conclusion I put as premise).

Please elaborate on how it is actually the opposite. Other than that, I did get the gap in the argument (ie, between best interests and courageous action).

thanks!

[mkd000]

Another tough question. There’s a lot to parse through in the argument core, but here’s my boiled-down version of it:

Premise: Citizens who care about the nation’s well-being will find this decision courageous

Conclusion: The decision is good for the nation

The main gap here is between "X is courageous" and "X is good for the nation."

Unfortunately, (B), the right answer, doesn’t get at the gap in exactly the same language as the argument core. It’s not what I call a "cinderalla" (perfect fit) answer choice. However, (B) discusses the collapse between something being considered "courageous" and that thing being considered "wise." "Wise" may seem out of scope, but we can link the notion of wisdom to goodness and excellence. A wise decision is a good one.

(A) discusses a blurring between "necessary" and "desirable" qualities of leadership. The argument isn’t worried about this. (A) is out of scope.

(C) isn’t an assumption. The argument explicitly concerns those citizens who prioritize national well-being over partisanship. It doesn’t matter how many or how few of these citizens exist, or how many of them have no partisanship at all. (C) also doesn’t touch anything relating to conclusion (was the decision good for the nation?)

(D) brings up members of the president’s party, who are irrelevant.

(E) is tempting, but doesn’t articulate an assumption. We know the following premises:
1. The president is rejecting a proposal from parliament.
2. This decision courageously ignores partisanship.
Does it matter whether ALL proposals from parliament are highly partisan? No. We know this one probably is. Who cares about the other ones.

Hope this helps.

--Rina

Rina - I'm having trouble with the argument core here. I broke the argument down in in a different way than you (what you put as premise, I put as conclusion and what you put at conclusion I put as premise).

Please elaborate on how it is actually the opposite. Other than that, I did get the gap in the argument (ie, between best interests and courageous action).

thanks!

[FaisalA744]

Initially when I did this question I was predicting an answer that said: "Assumes that the best interests of the nation is reflected by those citizens who place the nation's well being above narrow partisan interests". Would this be a correct answer if it were one of the answer choices?

Also if C stated that "It ignores the likelihood that most citizens have narrow partisan interest in the proposed election reform plan" would that also be a potential flaw in the argument?

Thanks for any feedback.

[HazelZ814]

I think another way to rule out A is that no one says the decision the mayor made is "effective". So this answer is descriptively inaccurate.

[NicoleZ599]

For (D), I think even if the president's own party was in favor of this measure or the president was pressured to do so by his party, it didn't rule out the possibility that this measure could be acted in the best interest of the nation. Both could work out smoothly at the same time. So (D) is just irrelevant.

[Laura Damone]

Nice work! Never assume mutual exclusivity on the LSAT. Well done!