Q14 - If legislators are to enact

[dan]

14. (D)
Question type: Assumption
The author states that because legislators feel repugnance or enthusiasm for legislation, they do not consider what the consequences of enacting a law will be. However, these are not mutually exclusive emotions and motivations _ a legislator can, at the same time, feel repugnance at another legislator’s strategy, but see the benefit of a particular bill. This author is incorrectly assuming that one consideration will exclude another.

Answer choice (D) addresses this assumption, and is therefore correct.

(A) is an attractive answer, but, according to the author, concern with their own career is a characteristic that leads to the major block _ introducing legislation in a polemic way that inspires repugnance or enthusiasm _ rather than being the block itself.
(B) is outside the scope of the argument. "Success" is not defined.
(C) is outside the scope of the argument _ whether constituents adhere or not is not discussed.
(E) represents a misinterpretation of the argument.

[lisahollchang]

I also answered E for this one and looking back at the question, especially after reading Dan's explanation, I believe E's error lies in it actually reversing the argument or gap in the logic.

The logical gap is: how do we know legislators that feel repugnance or enthusiasm for a law won't carefully consider the consequences. D closes this gap. E doesn't close it because it would still be possible for some of the aforementioned legislators to carefully consider the consequences. E simply places the blame once it is found that they don't.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

That's exactly right lisaholichang!

The key place where answer choice (E) takes a wrong turn is when it says "due to." Answer choice (E) tells us why legislators are unable to consider the actual consequences of enacting a proposed legislation. What the argument should be doing is bridging the gap in the argument between arousing repugnance or enthusiasm and then failing to consider the consequences of enacting the legislation.

One reason why mrudula_2005 might have been tempted on answer choice (E) is that if it were true that legislatures were unable to consider the consequences of enacting proposed legislation, that would prove the conclusion. In a sense, it would serve as a sufficient assumption. This is a necessary assumption, meaning, not what will prove the conclusion, but what is required for the conclusion to have a chance of being true.

Hope that helps, and thanks lisaholichang for your explanation. Great work!

[LSAT-Chang]

I am still having trouble understanding the core of this argument and what the "gap" really is.

Is this even the correct core (below)?

Premise: Contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents + legislators arouse either repugnance or enthusiasm for the legislation among colleagues

Conclusion: If legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents, they must be sure to consider what the consequences of enacting a proposed law will actually be. (since it is a subjective point of view = "must", I thought this was the author's conclusion)

OR.. is this the core (below):

Premise: Concerned primarily with advancing their own political careers, legislators present legislation in polemical terms which arouses in their colleagues either repugnance or enthusiasm for the legislation.

Conclusion: Contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents (but if this is the correct conclusion -- how can it be, I thought conclusions were always subjective (especially when we have an argument -- which we always do for assumption family questions)

I don't see the gap.. I guess I don't see it because I don't know what the core is..

[timmydoeslsat]

The main conclusion of this argument is the second sentence:

"Contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents."

The evidence for this conclusion?

1. If legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents ---> they must consider the consequences of enacting a proposed law

2. Contemporary legislatures present controversial terms in legislation and this has the effect of their colleagues to show repugnance or enthusiasm for the legislation.


So the core is:



If legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents ---> they must consider the consequences of enacting a proposed law

+

Contemporary legislatures present controversial terms in legislation and this has the effect of their colleagues to show repugnance or enthusiasm for the legislation.

---> Therefore

Contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents.


For this conclusion to be reached, we can think about the importance of the conditional statement that was used as evidence. The author reached a conclusion of ~enact laws that benefit constituents.

We know that we can reach that term in the conditional statement if we use its contrapositive. So we can think about a situation of where we have a case of "~considering consequences."

The author just left us hanging on a cliff. The author talks about how contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents.

And why does the author conclude that?

Because contemporary legislatures use controversial terms in their legislation and this makes the people enthused or disgusted.

"So?" you should be asking yourself. Even if the guys feel that way, they can still consider the consequences of the law.


Look at choice D if you negate it:

"Legislators considering a proposed law for which they have repugnance or enthusiasm do consider the Consequences that it will actually have."

Well if they DO consider the consequences that it will have, the author cannot conclude that the contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents.

Please tell me if you would like to go over this more.

[LSAT-Chang]

Hmm.. I think I understand 90% of it.
I'll try explaining it in my own words, and please let me know if this is exactly what you were trying to say.

Premise 1: Legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents --> need to consider what the consequences of enacting a proposed law will actually be

Conclusion: Contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents.

So in simple terms, we have A --> B as the premise, and the author is concluding NOT A. So the contrapositive would be NOT B --> NOT A. So we need the "NOT B" part in order for the author to to conclude "NOT A". Am I correct? Or maybe I can't say the author needs that, since NOT A could happen from other variables, not necessarily NOT B.. right? Okay I think I'm confusing myself now. Is it because A --> B is the same thing as NOT B --> NOT A, and so we DO need NOT B for NOT A?? Do I make sense at all?

And (D) has that exact phrasing: does NOT consider the consequences of enacting a proposed law

So it was something the author HAD to assume for the conclusion of "does NOT enact laws that benefit constituents.

All the other answer choices don't address this correctly, except (D) so I could have technically ignored the other premise about "concerned primarily with advancing their own political careers.....either repugnance or enthusiasm for the legislation".. right? Or would you personally disagree? I think we got the correct answer just from the conditional statement of the premise and author's conclusion in regards to that conditional statement.

[timmydoeslsat]

Hmm.. I think I understand 90% of it.
I'll try explaining it in my own words, and please let me know if this is exactly what you were trying to say.

Premise 1: Legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents --> need to consider what the consequences of enacting a proposed law will actually be

Conclusion: Contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents.

So in simple terms, we have A --> B as the premise, and the author is concluding NOT A. So the contrapositive would be NOT B --> NOT A. So we need the "NOT B" part in order for the author to to conclude "NOT A". Am I correct? Or maybe I can't say the author needs that, since NOT A could happen from other variables, not necessarily NOT B.. right? Okay I think I'm confusing myself now.

You are doing the kind of thinking I want you to! This is great.

In this argument, the author is stating this:

A ---> B
Group X does an action
_________________
Group X cannot do A

For the arguer to conclude ~A, we need to see the relevance of this action. What is it about this action that the author can conclude that the Group does not do A?

In this setup, it is necessary for Group X to not have B according to his argument. The author is extracting a conclusion from this conditional relationship.

This is a unique answer choice that is actually both necessary and sufficient to the argument.

The most efficient way to do things on necessary assumption questions is to realize that it more than likely will not require any diagramming.

You need to understand the conclusion for these necessary assumption questions. Then realize that more than likely there are going to be about 2-3 terrible candidates for answers.

In this problem, B and C are easy eliminations. Nothing about being successful and nothing about constituents adhering to laws.

Then you can apply the negation technique to the remaining candidates.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice discussion!

Here's how I look at this one, but it's essentially the same as what you guys have illustrated above.

BC ---> CC
R or E
--------------
~BC

Notation Key: BC = enact laws that benefit the constituents, CC = consider the consequences, R or E = present legislation in ways that inspire repugnance or enthusiasm

Or you could see it like

~C ---> ~B
A
-----------
C

The assumption here being A ---> B

and in the true notation for this question...

R or E ---> ~CC, best expressed in answer choice (D).

Nice work So and Tim!

[geverett]

It is definitely both necessary and sufficient. I think we are starting to see more of these lately.

I'd like to hear a more thorough refutation of A on this one as well. I am thinking it is wrong, because the stimulus talks about legislators "concerned primarily with advancing their political careers" while answer choice A talks about being less concerned with their political careers. One could become less concerned with their political career, but still not meet the threshold of not being primarily concerned with their political careers.

Thoughts?

[jiyoonsim]

This was a confusing question, and I think part of the reason is it's tough to detect a solid argument here. For some reason, I understood this question by working backward - meaning, from the last sentence to the first sentence. I'll share how I tackled this, so please comment if I'm missing anything.

It was easier for me to look at the stem as two unconnected chunks.

1st chunk: To enact laws that benefit people, legislators must consider the consequences of that law. BUT the legislators fail to enact laws that benefit people.

2nd chunk: Since the legislators are concerned about advancing their own political career, legislators present legislation in polemical terms. This causes either repugnance or enthusiasm in their colleagues.

A) points nothing back to the first chunk.
D) does, pointing at both 1st and 2nd chunk.


OR, here's how I worked from the last sentence.

-----

Concerned with political career -> present legislations in polemical terms -> causes repugnance/enthusiasm

~Enact laws that benefit people

Enact laws that benefit people -> consider consequences.

-----

By the rule of contrapositive, we can infer
~consider consequences -> ~enact laws that benefit people.

THUS the stem can be organized as:


Concerned with political career -> present legislations in polemical terms -> causes repugnance/enthusiasm

~consider consequences -> ~enact laws that benefit people.

What we need is connecting "~consider repugnances" and "causes repugnance/enthusiasm" and make them as a wholel. D) does that. A) looks like a pretty good answer, but no...benefiting people isn't much of a concern in this question.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

It is definitely both necessary and sufficient. I think we are starting to see more of these lately.

I'd like to hear a more thorough refutation of A on this one as well. I am thinking it is wrong, because the stimulus talks about legislators "concerned primarily with advancing their political careers" while answer choice A talks about being less concerned with their political careers. One could become less concerned with their political career, but still not meet the threshold of not being primarily concerned with their political careers.

Thoughts?

Interesting idea! One thing about answer choice (A) is that it connects the conclusion and connects it with a statement in the argument that was unconnected with conditional relationships to any of the other evidence. So if you want to skip all the rest of the evidence, answer choice (A) might appear temptingly sufficient. But to control for a more certain way to eliminate answer choice (A) they introduced the possibility of eliminating answer choice (A) just like you suggested - politicians could have less concern for their own careers and yet still be primarily motivated by a concern for their own career.

Also, I'd agree that we see plenty of answer choices that represent both sufficient and necessary assumptions of the argument. This is more frequent on assumption questions that work fundamentally through chaining together conditional logic.

Hope that helps!

[americano1990]

Just for those who are having trouble with (E)

I think the key word here is "inability"

What we want to show is that "presenting legislation in polemical terms"---> "NOT consider actual conseq. of enacting the law"
in order to conclude that "legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit"

So this question has nothing to do with inability.

Try negating (E): "the inability of legislators to consider the actual consequences of the law is NOT due to their strong feelings about that law."

The stimulus still holds. Strong feelings (which we may interpret as encompassing repugnance and enthusiasm) dont have to be the CAUSE of the inability. The only thing that is NECESSARY is that strong feelings should contribute to making the legislators NOT CONSIDER the actual consequences.

FAILING TO CONSIDER by no means has anything to do with INABILITY. The legislators may have all the ability in the world to consider the consequences, but they can so happen to be just negligent.

[joseph.m.kirby]

I was able to get this question correct; nevertheless, I would still like to improve my understanding and strength related to necessary assumption questions. Thus, I have a question of my own:

If the premise below were added to the argument, would (D) still be necessary?

Concerned primarily with advancing own political career, present in polemical terms --> ~consider consequences of enacting a proposed law.

Argument:

P: enact laws that benefit --> consider consequences
P: Concerned primarily with advancing own political career, present in polemical terms
SC: arouses either repugnance or enthusiasm (not sure if this can be seen as a subsidiary conclusion)
---
C: ~enact laws that benefit


I know the new premise would not fit the argument as neatly as (D); nevertheless, it seems the new premise would make it possible for the conclusion to follow.

[timmydoeslsat]

The new premise you added to the argument would no longer give us an invalid argument. It would totally fix the argument and the conclusion would follow logically. So at that point (D) would not be an assumption any longer. It would be a stated premise.

[wgutx08]

Maybe i didn't have enough coffee this morning--- but isn't D kind of imprecise regarding the premise?

Premise: ...legislations...arouse in their colleagues either repugnance or enthusiasm...

D:legislators...for which they have repugnance or enthusiasm..

So in the premise, the legislators propose laws that arouse strong feelings in others, but D reads like the proposers have these strong feelings themselves.

I first thought it is a detail creep that would disqualify D, but then of course, other ACs are all garbage. So I did pick D, but would appreciate it very much if somebody can help me with this problem.

Many thanks in advance!!

[jm.kahn]

It is definitely both necessary and sufficient. I think we are starting to see more of these lately.

I'd like to hear a more thorough refutation of A on this one as well. I am thinking it is wrong, because the stimulus talks about legislators "concerned primarily with advancing their political careers" while answer choice A talks about being less concerned with their political careers. One could become less concerned with their political career, but still not meet the threshold of not being primarily concerned with their political careers.
Thoughts?

Yes, but that still doesn't disqualify A as "become less concerned with their political career" is the necessary condition in A. If one has become not primarily concerned with their career, we definitely know that they have become less concerned with their career, even though the opposite is not true.

Interesting idea! One thing about answer choice (A) is that it connects the conclusion and connects it with a statement in the argument that was unconnected with conditional relationships to any of the other evidence. So if you want to skip all the rest of the evidence, answer choice (A) might appear temptingly sufficient. But to control for a more certain way to eliminate answer choice (A) they introduced the possibility of eliminating answer choice (A) just like you suggested - politicians could have less concern for their own careers and yet still be primarily motivated by a concern for their own career.

Why is A wrong?

This explanation above for A doesn't work because "less concerned with their own careers" is a necessary condition in A. (A) basically says that legislation will benefit constituents only if legislators become less concerned with their own careers.
We already know that argument assumes that legislation will benefit constituents only if politicians are not concerned primarily with their political career. If politicians are not concerned primarily with their career then they, for sure, are less concerned with their career because the premise suggested that they are currently concerned primarily with their career. Combining these two gives us A. Why then is A incorrect?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hi jm.kahn, I really like your well-reasoned question!

Here's an issue with answer choice that may not have been addressed yet: answer choice (A) is about the future. This answer choice could not be used to arrive at a conclusion about whether contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents.

The conclusion is about the present, answer choice (A) is about a possible remedy for the future.

I also really believe that answer choice (A) skips over much of the critical evidence the argument relies on in establishing the conclusion, such as the issue of repugnance or enthusiasm for legislation and the conditional in the first sentence regarding considering the consequences of enacting a proposed law.

What do you think?

[WaltGrace1983]

Posted this on TLS so I might as well post it here.

(Enact laws that benefit constituents → must be sure to consider consequences)
+
Arouses repugnance or enthusiasm for legislation
→
~(Enact laws that benefit constituents)

The hard part about this question is understanding the core. Finding the true conclusion is super tricky and the true premises is also super tricky. However, we can use the THEREFORE test to understand how to do this in this particular question. It makes the most sense that the author would say that all of this information leads to the conclusion that "Contemporary legislations fail to enact laws that benefit [b]the constituents."

Let me know if that doesn't make sense!

Now, how can we possibly - from a conditional premise in which we are given A → B, conclude ~A? There is one possible way to do this: We must assume ~B. If we have A → B, and we assume ~B, we can conclude ~A! This is just a simple contrapositive and I am assuming you know this.

Ok so the author is assuming that ~(must be sure to consider the consequences). That is, the author is assuming the negation of the necessary condition in order to conclude the negation of the sufficient condition given to us in the premises.

But like true LSAT fashion, our task is a bit more difficult than simply assuming that because we have another premise: (Arouses repugnance or enthusiasm for legislation). So the author is basically assuming that (Arouses repugnance or enthusiasm for legislation) is the equivalent to ~(must be sure to consider the consequences). That is, the author is assuming that this repugnance/enthusiasm stuff is synonymous with ~B. You got that?

There is also a more volatile, but perhaps efficient, way of solving the problem if you were really strapped for time on the real test. I can almost guarantee that, given the strange structure of this problem, there is going to be something to do with repugnance/enthusiasm. After all, it is our main premise that we are working off of. I would guess that the right answer would having something to do with that and (D) is the only one that does.

(A) The "benefiting careers" bit is not really a premise but really a side-point or an explanation of why things are the way they are. It's not really a main topic of conversation.

(B) 'successful" is just so off-the-mark its not even funny.

(C) "adherence" is absolutely never talked about nor implied in any way.

(E) We absolutely do not care WHY this is so.

[Emmeline Ndongue]

I want to provide an easy way to understand this one.

Argument:
Premises
1. benef. ->conseq.
2. Concerned...... (Concerned....legislation)
-----------------------------
Conc
~.benef.

up til here you're supposed to have guessed the assumption made:
"Concerned.....->~.conseq." bc it connects the premise to the conclusion: Concerned...->~.conseq.->~.benef.

so what you should do next is looking for answers that match your BOLD guess!
only A & D come close.

D matches our guess, it's the correct answer.

A says: benef.->"LESS" "Concerned with their own Careers"
Problem 1:
Now, it seems that A bridge the gap too. But, if you look closer, the necessary condition aren't quite the same as our 2nd Premise in that it neglects the details on the effect made by legislators only caring about their own careers.

Problem 2:
The "LESS" by no means mean "NOT", so it doesn't give you the contrapositive you need, which is "~.Concerned....->~.benef".
Simply put, "LESS" "Concerned with their own Careers" ≠ "NOT" "Concerned....."

I'd say this question should take you no longer than 02:30

[ShuhanM597]

A is incorrect because its contrapositive is if legislators don't become less concerned with their own careers legislation will not benefit the constituents. And this is too exteme as well as not supported (this is not a conditional in the stimulus). It's possibile that some other reasons cause them to benefit the consituents and still primarily concern their own careers. imagine you never eat cheese burgers because you primarily concern your health, but one day a girl you like agrees to hangout with you only if you eat a cheese burger, in that case you would probbaly eat a cheese burger while still primarily concern your health.