#14 - If legislators are to enact laws that benefit

[mrdmass725]

Correct me if I am wrong but by the logic I am using answer A is wrong because it does not address one of the main supports in the stimulus which is considering the consequences of a law and answer D does this better by plugging the gap between considering the consequences and the conclusion of failing to pass laws that benefit the constituents. Please let me know if I am thinking about this problem in the correct manner.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi mrdmass725,

What you've mentioned is definitely a point in favor of answer choice D, though I want you to be a little careful, because it's sometimes the case in an Assumption or Justify question that something you think should be tied to the conclusion doesn't ultimately get mentioned in the correct answer.

For a little more depth on answer choice A, also glance back briefly at Adam's excellent discussion of it in his post at the bottom of page two of this thread. He's right that ultimately answer choice A is not being assumed because what the author really wants the legislators to stop doing is to stop presenting legislation in polemical terms that arouses emotions that prevent consideration of consequences. As long as they do that, the author of the argument will be satisfied. So the author isn't necessarily assuming that the legislators have to become less concerned with their careers. Rather, the author is assuming that the legislators have to stop letting their career concern make them do things that arouse damaging emotions in their colleagues.

I hope this helps!

[cd1010]

Hi -- I'm having trouble distinguishing D and E. The only difference I see is that E uses causal language.

D: As the official explanation said, this fits in with the AC we are looking for: Repugnance/Enthusiasm /Consider consequences

E: My notes for this are: Strong feelings about the law (Cause); /Consider consequences (Effect)

Because I was looking for a supporter assumption, I couldn't figure out why E is not the correct answer. If E is wrong because it's causal reasoning? If so, why can't causal reasoning be a supporter assumption in this case? Another potential problem with E is "strong feelings about the law", but to me that was logically equivalent to Repugnance/enthusiasm. Here I'm drawing from other LSAT problems where logical equivalents in components of the argument are identified even though the specific language is not exactly the same.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi cd,

Perhaps the easiest way of eliminating Answer E is to realize that "strong emotions" is not equivalent to "repugnance or enthusiasm." While repugnance and enthusiasm could reasonably be described as strong emotions, not all strong emotions fall within those two categories. For example, I could have strong emotions that a proposed law is a really bad idea and vote against it without necessarily finding it "repugnant."

The test makers often do like to use synonyms or equivalent terms to convey an idea in the stimulus, but you have to be careful to check whether the term is equivalent or somehow different in a key way (such as broader in scope, like we have here.)

Second, you're correct that E is causal, which is a problem. E is stating that those legislators who have this inability to consider the consequences have it because of their strong emotions, but this does not guarantee that any legislator who has these strong emotions (specifically repugnance or enthusiasm) will definitely have this inability to consider the consequences.

We need a conditional answer to bridge the logical gap (a supporter assumption) in this argument, which is exactly what Answer D does. The best approach to this question is to diagram it, take the contrapositive and prephrase the missing link as Dave discusses in the first post on this thread.