Q12 - Politician: My opponents argue

[LSAT-Chang]

I have no clue what this question is about.. I eliminated A and E just out of feeling, and picked B. Could someone kindly walk me through this problem??

[timmydoeslsat]

This is a rare question type.

Politician:

Opponents argue that future of the city depends on compromise.

Opponents say, City will not suffer ---> compromise

However, the city's founders have definite principles that are the base of the city's charter. Anyone who compromises those principles betrays the founder's goals.

Notice that the politician has made a jump. Do we know what the principles of the charter are? The politician is thinking that if politicians compromise, that they will be automatically COMPROMISING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CHARTER.

And that may not have to be something that is true.

I mean the principles could be like:

1. Do what is in the best interest of the city

2. Politicians should work together.


Then, we are to finish the critic's statement.

The critic is saying that the politician's argument is flawed because the politician is assuming that the issues between politicians are matters of principle. And it may not be about matters of principle.

Thus, the politicians argument depends on the way the politicians used the word compromise.

[maryadkins]

Good explanation, and a tricky question. I think this question is most easily handled by treating the politician's statements like a flaw question. The critic is articulating the flaw, and we're filling in the missing piece.

The core of the politician's statements are:

compromising principles of charter betrays founders' goals

-->

the argument that they should compromise on differences is wrong

What's the assumption? That to compromise on difference means to compromise on principle.

[zen]

Thanks for the explanations.

Here's the way I thought about it:

I'm looking for a term contained in the answer choices that is used atleast two times. By using a term atleast two times, a difference can be seen in the usage to determine where it was used in a misleading and or inconsistent way,

(A)- He mentions "betraying" two times but the way he uses it is pretty clear. It does not seem that it is misleading. Eliminate.

(B)- He mentions "common" two times but in both instances the usage is meant the same way so it does not seem misleading. (Eliminate).

(D)- I was immediately skeptical about this answer choice because it seemed like the test writers were baiting me into picking this as principles is repeated three times and there is some confusion regarding how "city charter's definite principles" and the "city founder's goals". I advise being skeptical of answer choices like this.

(E)- In both instances of this term the author is referring to the same group of people; therefore, it is not misleading. Eliminate.

(C)- This is where the problem lies. I looked at the first instance of "compromise" and it seems to be referring to "compromise" in the sense of working together and putting aside one's differences in order to come to an agreement. This contrasts with the second instance of "compromise" where the Politician is using "compromise" to mean a breach of the city charter's principles. In one instance in means one thing, and in the other instance it means something completely different. He uses the term "compromise" in a misleading way to bolster his own argument. If you see two identical words in the same context but with different meanings or connotations, be wary.

Hope this helps!

[RAANZ439]

In the critic's argument, there is a premise/hypothesis (the difference is not on the principles of the founders), and a conclusion (the misuse of ______). So one only has to look at which one of the choices, when filled in, would make the conclusion work, given the premise/hypothesis.

In the politician's argument, 2 interpretations of the word compromise are employed: to make a concession vs. to harm/betray. His logic is:
P1. anyone who compromises the principles predestined by the city founders betrays their goals
P2. the opponents argue that the future of the city depends on compromises by city leaders
C. the opponents' advocation is a betrayal of founders' goals
This argument does not stand because it automatically qualifies compromises by city leaders as compromising the principles. But actually, the compromises by the leaders do not necessarily have anything to do with the principles.
Therefore, if the compromise by leaders is non-principle, a compromise is made, but then the principles aren't actually compromised. The politician misleads by confusing the two interpretations of the word "compromise".