Q15 - Ruth: To become a politician

hello,

can someone please explain this question to me? i chose C instead of A and i think it's because it didn't make any sense to me how being worthy of public trust came into play, so it seemed to me Stephanie was just refuting Ruth without giving reasons to it.

but can someone also plain why Stephanie's view is more vulnerable to criticism than Ruth's? is it because Ruth was trying to say that having varied experience is required to become a politician, and not to be worthy of public trust as Stephanie understood it?

thanks in advance!

[giladedelman]

You mean you chose A instead of C, right?

Also, this has nothing to do with whether Stephanie's argument is more vulnerable than Ruth's. The question stem never suggests that, and it's not our job to make that judgment. Our job is to figure out what's wrong with Stephanie's response. (Ruth's argument certainly depends on an assumption about the importance of understanding the need for compromise.)

So, what is wrong with Stephanie's response? Well, Ruth says that people should be required to have a diversity of experience in order to be a politician. Stephanie responds that having varied experience is not enough to be worthy of public trust. But Ruth never say's it's enough, she says it should be required; in other words, Ruth says it should be necessary, and Stephanie's response is to say that it's not sufficient. Furthermore, Ruth is talking about a requirement for being a politician, not about a requirement for meriting public trust. So Stephanie attacks a much broader, and therefore more vulnerable, argument than the one Ruth actually makes.


That's why (C) is correct. Stephanie attributes to Ruth a view -- that varied experience is enough to deserve public trust -- that Ruth never expresses.

(A) is incorrect because, as we just showed, Stephanie doesn't actually assert a view opposite to Ruth's; she asserts a view opposite to what she mistakenly thinks Ruth is saying.

(B) is incorrect because Stephanie never says experience is not beneficial to the practice of politics.

(D) is incorrect because the distinction between personal and professional experience is out of scope.

(E) is out because the response does not depend on the assumption that "flexibility is unimportant."

Does that clear this one up for you?

[timsportschuetz]

The flaw in this question is quite common on the LSAT and all test takers should be familiar with it! This fallacy is called the "straw man". It basically is a faulty argumentation technique that takes an opponent's argument and changes its' scope and/or wording in order to aid the respondent's rebuttal. In this particular question, Stephanie completely changes Ruth's argument by replacing "becoming a politician" with "public trust" in order to aid her argument.

Another example to illustrate this fallacy:
Person A: "The FAA should allow some limited access to WIFI during continental flights."
Person B: "Your suggestion of allowing unrestricted WIFI during continental flights is absurd! It would surely cause accidents due to the passengers continually using WIFI frequencies during take-offs and landings!"

[WaltGrace1983]

Another way to think about this question is to just think about the "arrows."

Ruth: Politician → Experience
"To become a politician, a person should be required to have experience"

Stephanie: Experience ~→ Politician (Public Trust)
"To be worthy of public trust, it is not enough that one simply have experience"

Ruth never says experience is enough! She merely says that it should be required! While the politician = public trust flaw is certainly valid and something to keep in mind, I think the bigger issue is that Stephanie takes Ruth's necessary condition as a sufficient condition. This is also a very common flaw on the LSAT and something that is going to be necessary to understand in order to get a top score.

[ganbayou]

You mean you chose A instead of C, right?

Also, this has nothing to do with whether Stephanie's argument is more vulnerable than Ruth's. The question stem never suggests that, and it's not our job to make that judgment. Our job is to figure out what's wrong with Stephanie's response. (Ruth's argument certainly depends on an assumption about the importance of understanding the need for compromise.)

So, what is wrong with Stephanie's response? Well, Ruth says that people should be required to have a diversity of experience in order to be a politician. Stephanie responds that having varied experience is not enough to be worthy of public trust. But Ruth never say's it's enough, she says it should be required; in other words, Ruth says it should be necessary, and Stephanie's response is to say that it's not sufficient. Furthermore, Ruth is talking about a requirement for being a politician, not about a requirement for meriting public trust. So Stephanie attacks a much broader, and therefore more vulnerable, argument than the one Ruth actually makes.


That's why (C) is correct. Stephanie attributes to Ruth a view -- that varied experience is enough to deserve public trust -- that Ruth never expresses.

(A) is incorrect because, as we just showed, Stephanie doesn't actually assert a view opposite to Ruth's; she asserts a view opposite to what she mistakenly thinks Ruth is saying.

(B) is incorrect because Stephanie never says experience is not beneficial to the practice of politics.

(D) is incorrect because the distinction between personal and professional experience is out of scope.

(E) is out because the response does not depend on the assumption that "flexibility is unimportant."

Does that clear this one up for you?

Why would broader mean "more vulnerable"?
Actually I did not understand what C means...
Attribute means something like "label", right?

[maryadkins]

Gilad used "broader" to mean easier to attack. More weak spots.

In (C), "attribute" means "understands as" or "assumes she means." You can think of it that way.

Suppose you say, "Get out of my way!" and I say, "Why do you hate women?" I'm ATTRIBUTING to you a hatred of women (or interpreting your statement as one of hatred, or assuming you mean you hate women), even though what may really be happening is that you just want me to get out of your way.