Q14 - People's political behavior frequently does not

[noah]

Analyze the role.

The conclusion of this rather tricky argument is stated first: in terms of politics, people's actions often do not match their words. The proof is an involved example which itself concludes -- in the last sentence -- that voters reelect politicians whose behavior the voters don't like. The important thing to realize is that everything beyond the first sentence is an elaborate example of people not doing what they say. It leads up to an intermediate conclusion, but don't be fooled by the "thus" and assume that the last sentence has to be the final conclusion.

The reason that the rest of the argument, including that last sentence, is proof for the initial and ultimate conclusion is that it shows people saying one thing -- that they dislike government intervention into their lives -- but then doing another -- not reelecting the politicians who stay out of their lives. Since political activity is equated with interventions in voters' lives, we can say that these people are not reelecting politicians who shy away from intervening, a choice which seems strange since these voters supposedly want politicians to stay out of their lives).

The question asks what role the fact that people don't vote for inactive politicians plays in the argument. As (B) notes, that piece of information is leading to the intermediate conclusion presented in the last sentence of the argument. This answer is tempting to incorrectly eliminate because it does not refer to that conclusion as an intermediate conclusion, however an intermediate conclusion is a conclusion nonetheless.

(A) is tempting, since the conclusion does relate closely to that fact, however the final conclusion does not explain that fact, and actually, the conclusion does not explain the intermediate conclusion. The intermediate conclusion is an example--a sort of premise--given to support the final conclusion. While a conclusion can explain a premise (dogs are violent, thus it must be that canines descended from wolves), but in this case, the fact that political behavior doesn't match rhetoric doesn't explain the discrepancy, it uses that as an example to generalize.

(C) is incorrect because people not voting for inactive politicians is not an example of politician's actions consisting of interference. The two facts are used in conjunction to build the intermediate premise.

(D) is incorrect because people complaining about government intervention does not lead to people not voting for inactive politicians. If anything, those complaints would lead us to expect that voters would vote for those politicians!

(E) is tempting but too extreme. Nowhere does the argument state that people's behavior NEVER matches their beliefs.

[zainrizvi]

Can you give an example of option (A) in an argument, just so I can see how it differs from option (B)? I'm getting confused in the difference

[patrice.antoine]

Bump.

Would the LSAT differentiate in answer choices between a main conclusion and intermediary conclusion? For example, would they specify "main conclusion" if they were referencing such in an answer choice? I ask because (B) can easily be perceived as reference to the main conclusion though not explicitly stating such.

Very confusing!

[noah]

Can you give an example of option (A) in an argument, just so I can see how it differs from option (B)? I'm getting confused in the difference

Dogs and cats never get married. Thus, members of different species do not find each other attractive.

The first sentence is a phenomenon for which the conclusion is an explanation.

[noah]

Bump.

Would the LSAT differentiate in answer choices between a main conclusion and intermediary conclusion? For example, would they specify "main conclusion" if they were referencing such in an answer choice? I ask because (B) can easily be perceived as reference to the main conclusion though not explicitly stating such.

Very confusing!

Answers will sometimes say "intermediate" (or "subsidiary") conclusion to make it clear--and sometimes they'll refer to a "final conclusion." However, if there is an intermediate and final, an answer could also refer to "a conclusion" as a way of not distinguishing between them.

Very tricky indeed.

Here, (B) makes it clear which conclusion it is referring to by re-stating that conclusion.

[dean.won]

Is it safe to say that a conclusion can never be an explanation of a premise?

The reason why i crossed out B was because i thought the last sentence and the quoted statment INDPENDENTLY supported the first sentence.

[noah]

Is it safe to say that a conclusion can never be an explanation of a premise?

The reason why i crossed out B was because i thought the last sentence and the quoted statment INDPENDENTLY supported the first sentence.

A conclusion can be an explanation:

Jim is the head of our department but the least qualified of anyone on the team. I conclude he must have bribed his way to the position.

[griffin3575]

I am still a little confused with answer choice A, so I would like to explain my reasoning and see what you all think. First, let me lay out how I saw the structure of this argument.

P1: Although many complain about gov. intervention, they tend not to reelect inactive politicians.
P2: But a politician's activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose enforcement affects voter's lives.
IC: Thus, voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.
C: People's political behavior frequently does not match their rhetoric.

The question stem asks us to identify the role of "people tend not to reelect inactive politicians" in the argument. I believe the conclusion does provide an explanation for a phenomenon occurring in the stimulus, but it describes a contradiction(phenomenon) occurring between a combination of the two premises, not JUST the first premise alone. Here is my reasoning why:

P1: People tend to REELECT ACTIVE politicians, even though they do not like gov. intervention in their lives(same as not reelecting inactive politicians)
P2: Being a politically active politician directly affects voter's lives (by passing laws)

So the contradiction or phenomenon occurring between the two premises is this: why do people tend to reelect active politicians when active politicians affect voter's lives and people do no like gov. intervention in their lives?

The conclusion explains this phenomenon: because people's behavior frequently doesn't match their rhetoric.

So, even though people say they don't like gov. intervention, they still tend to vote for active politicians because their behavior doesn't match their rhetoric.

They key point I am trying to make is that the conclusion does not explain a phenomenon in the first premise alone. The first premise by itself is not really a phenomenon at all, it is simply a stand alone fact. The conclusion does however support a phenomenon that is created when you combine premises 1 and 2. Therefore A, which states the conclusion explains a phenomenon occurring in premise 1 only, is incorrect.

Is this solid reasoning?

[noah]

I am still a little confused with answer choice A, so I would like to explain my reasoning and see what you all think. First, let me lay out how I saw the structure of this argument.

P1: Although many complain about gov. intervention, they tend not to reelect inactive politicians.
P2: But a politician's activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose enforcement affects voter's lives.
IC: Thus, voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.
C: People's political behavior frequently does not match their rhetoric.

The question stem asks us to identify the role of "people tend not to reelect inactive politicians" in the argument. I believe the conclusion does provide an explanation for a phenomenon occurring in the stimulus, but it describes a contradiction(phenomenon) occurring between a combination of the two premises, not JUST the first premise alone. Here is my reasoning why:

P1: People tend to REELECT ACTIVE politicians, even though they do not like gov. intervention in their lives(same as not reelecting inactive politicians)
P2: Being a politically active politician directly affects voter's lives (by passing laws)

So the contradiction or phenomenon occurring between the two premises is this: why do people tend to reelect active politicians when active politicians affect voter's lives and people do no like gov. intervention in their lives?

The conclusion explains this phenomenon: because people's behavior frequently doesn't match their rhetoric.

So, even though people say they don't like gov. intervention, they still tend to vote for active politicians because their behavior doesn't match their rhetoric.

They key point I am trying to make is that the conclusion does not explain a phenomenon in the first premise alone. The first premise by itself is not really a phenomenon at all, it is simply a stand alone fact. The conclusion does however support a phenomenon that is created when you combine premises 1 and 2. Therefore A, which states the conclusion explains a phenomenon occurring in premise 1 only, is incorrect.

Is this solid reasoning?

That's pretty good thinking, but I am not seeing it like that. I went back to my original explanation and cleaned up my discussion of (A). In short, while a conclusion can explain a premise, this one doesn't. I see the conclusion as generalization drawn from or resting on the example.

Consider this:

apples are red --> fruits are frequently colorful

This is a similar argument, and while we can try to contort it to say that the conclusion explains the premise, that's clearly a stretch.

A conclusion as explanation will be more like this:

all apples grown in Oregon are red --> farmers there are unable to grow other colors

In the first example, we couldn't say "well, there could be some other explanation", but in the second one we could.

That help?

[mimimimi]

IF we just look at (since the order of statements in an argument does not matter):

1. People's political behavior frequently does not match their rhetoric.

2. Voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.

I find "because 1 then 2" is much more convincing than "because 2 then 1." And it is easier to eliminate A if we think of the argument this way.

I need help...

[Mab6q]

IF we just look at (since the order of statements in an argument does not matter):

1. People's political behavior frequently does not match their rhetoric.

2. Voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.

I find "because 1 then 2" is much more convincing than "because 2 then 1." And it is easier to eliminate A if we think of the argument this way.

I need help...

Really, I tend to disagree. Everything after the first sentence is used to convey the idea presented in the first sentence: People's political behavior frequently does not match their rhetoric. If all we had were those two claims, than maybe you could me a more compelling argument for why the last sentence could be the conclusion, but because of the way the argument is setup, it's hard to say because 1 then 2.

The last sentence is the conclusion derived from the example given, which in turn showcases the main point about people's political behavior frequently not matching their rhetoric.

Having said that, I think the true difficulty in this question comes in choosing between A and B. More specifically, in seeing that the conclusion does not explain the phenomenon that A purports it does. B is the safer choice even if you mistook the last sentence as being the conclusion.

[daijob]

Just would like to make it clear...
So "politicians whose behavior they resent"=active politician?

Thanks,

[rinagoldfield]

Hi Daijob,

Exactly. “Politicians whose behavior they resent” are active politicians. We know this because people do “NOT elect inactive politicians.” We can infer that the people they do reelect are active, and the conclusion talks about reelected politicians.

Best,
Rina

[williamkazenas]

I was stuck between A and B for a long time here is just my way of justifying A was wrong.



(A) "describes phenomenon for which conclusion is offered as an explanation".

- Phenomenon: "They tend not reelect inactive politicians" (**as defined by instructions of question**)

so WHY do people vote this way? The answer choice says the conclusion explains why...

- Conclusion: Voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.

The argument's conclusion does not explain WHY people vote they way they do, it just affirms the trend in how people vote.

You could say the OVERALL ARGUMENT might offer an explanation as to why people vote the way they do...look into the second premise "politicians activity largely consists of the passage of laws whose enforcement....." blah blah

but the answer choice says the conclusion offers an explanation, not the overall argument.

Hope this is meaningful.

[LSATN100]

This argument is very convoluted because it uses different phrases to express the same idea (complain = resent; "government intervention = affect voter's lives"). The sentence that "people tend not to reelect inactive politicians" uses double negation, so it is hard to see that it actually means "people tend to reelect active politicians."
I simplified this argument as below:

P1: people dislike government intervention
P2: people reelect active politicians
P2: active politicians cause government invention
intermediate C: people reelect the politicians they dislike
C: people's political behavior does not match their rhetoric

The conjunctions in this argument are very distracting, and the sequence of the premises is confusing. It is clearer if we adjust the sequence of the premises:

P1: people reelect active politicians
P2: active politicians cause government invention
P3: people dislike government intervention
intermediate C: people reelect the politicians they dislike
C: people's political behavior does not match their rhetoric

Simply put, everything after the first sentence is an illustration of the first general idea.