Q22

[SecondWind180]

To be blunt, this question makes as much sense to me as smelling the number nine while tap dancing on one foot.

Thanks in advance.

[christine.defenbaugh]

SecondWind180, I think you have managed to perfectly describe how all of us have felt about the LSAT at one time or another!

This question is certainly phrased in a difficult manner. The most challenging aspect here is parsing out exactly what the darn question is even asking. So let try to break it down into pieces.

Looking at the structure of the question, we can see "Which of the following statements blah blah blah, if true, would provide the most support for blah blah blah?" So now, we know we are dealing with a strengthen question. We're going to open the LR toolbox for strengtheners, and get down to business. But what are we trying to strengthen?

Let's take another look at the final 'blah blah blah' - "the author's view of politicians". Hmmmmm. Now, the author talked an awful lot about bureaucrats, and it would be very tempting to just assume that this was the same thing. But that would be a big mistake! Looks like we need to go hunting in the passage for where the author discusses politicians.

Lines 47-49 are pay dirt - according to the author, politicians favor bureaucracy because it increases their ability to exercise political patronage. So this is the idea or viewpoint that we are going to want to support with an answer choice!

The first 'blah blah blah' of the question stem tells us what type of statement we're getting - something about the end of the allotment. Now, we know from the passage that the granting of allotments created a lot of bureaucracy. But we also know that allotment ended in 1934. So how can the author conclude that politicians were pro-bureaucracy when they ended a big bureaucracy?

(C) comes to the rescue. If the politicians ended allotment because it would no longer enhance their political patronage, that supports the author's view about why politicians support bureaucracy (because it increases their ability to exercise political patronage!). Essentially, politicians are motivated to support or oppose programs based on how they will affect political patronage.

This answer directly supports the author's view about the motivations of politicians!


Let's take a quick spin through the wrong answers to sort them out as well:

The Unsupporting Cast
(A) The author does not have a view that politicians care one way or the other about the Native American way of life.
(B) This might be put forward as an explanation for why allotment began, not why it ended. Additionally, the author's view on politicians does not suggest any particular view on communal land.
(D) The author's view on politicians does not suggest they would be concerned by the BIA growing 'too large'. In fact, they might have liked it, since they are pro-bureaucracy.
(E) Like (B), this might have been an argument for why allotment began, not why it ended.


It's extremely easy to get lost in what this question is really asking. Taking a step back and focusing on the structure of the question first, then the content specifics second can be a huge help. Additionally, always mine the passage for the specific location for support. Without the specific lines regarding politicians, this question would be very hard to answer!

Please let me know if this completely answered your question!

[SecondWind180]

My issue (now resolved, due to your efforts) with this question definitely was that I didn't understand what the question stem was asking.

Taking a step back and focusing on the structure of the question first, then the content specifics second can be a huge help.

Using this technique was really helpful in figuring out what the question was asking.

Thanks!

[uhdang]

Had a difficulty eliminating D)..

Although it is true that the author doesn't suggest they wouldn't be concerned about BIA's becoming 'too large', BIA's wanting to maximize doesn't exactly direct us to accept that becoming 'too large' is okay. And although politicians generally sound like pro-bureaucracy, "too" implies some negative implication.

C) is RIGHT on the point, so it's easier to get to the answer, but when it come to eliminating D), I feel like D) has a valid point in resisting my pencil from crossing off. Is there anything I'm missing?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Had a difficulty eliminating D)..

Although it is true that the author doesn't suggest they wouldn't be concerned about BIA's becoming 'too large', BIA's wanting to maximize doesn't exactly direct us to accept that becoming 'too large' is okay. And although politicians generally sound like pro-bureaucracy, "too" implies some negative implication.

C) is RIGHT on the point, so it's easier to get to the answer, but when it come to eliminating D), I feel like D) has a valid point in resisting my pencil from crossing off. Is there anything I'm missing?

Thanks for posting, uhdang!

I think you're getting a tad turned around and possibly forgetting what your job really is!

1) We need direct proof for the right answer. We don't need anti-proof for the wrong answers.
Since we have to be able to directly support the correct answer with something from the passage, if something isn't provable, it's wrong!! You're right that nothing in the passage tells us directly that the BIA becoming "too large" is okay. But so what? There's also nothing in the passage that tells us that the BIA becoming "too large" is not okay! We have no idea either way whether the ballooning BIA is okay with the politicians or not!

2) Stay focused on what you're trying to strengthen
Okay, so if we take this new information in (D) as gospel, then politicians thought the BIA was getting too big. How does that impact the view that politicians are pro-bureaucracy because it's good for political patronage? We have no information how something being "too big" would affect political patronage, so we're just kind of left hanging. Maybe something being "too big" would be bad for political patronage. Maybe it would be awesome for political patronage. I have no earthly idea!

The only way that the BIA becoming "too big" supports this "politicians like bureaucracy because of how it increases their political patronage", is if we add in a bunch of connecting assumptions. And then, it's really our assumptions, not the information in (D), that are lending the support to the view.

We can't prove (D) is a lie (though it seems unlikely), but even if it were true, it would have no impact on the likelihood of the author's view of politicians.

What do you think?

[uhdang]

Thanks for the reply.

As I was going over the question with your response, I found a big mistake that I made. I thought I was referring to the line 43-47 about politicians too much staff and budget(while line 48-51 actually talks about Politician's political patronage.), that is about bureaucrats. I seemed to have made an assumption that bureaucrats and politicians are same.. (because they both work for government..?)

Having made that distinction clear, it was clear that WHERE I should only look for info about politicians and make certain that "too much staff and budget" is an irrelevant issue when it comes to politicians. Your two points really helped me see this!

Thank you for the help!

[lalafiggy]

Hi,

I understand why D is wrong, but it bothers me that C is not strong enough. My issue with it is that it says continuing allotment would not enhance patronage opportunities, but doesn't address the possibility that ending it would decrease patronage. Are you just supposed to accept a glaring hole in the argument? I guess it's not a justify question but it's still unnerving and made me feel like I was picking the wrong answer.

L