Q22 - In a poll conducted by

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So why is it that everyone said they would vote for Kenner, but then when the vote was held Muratori won. I can think of lots of reasons: first, the people conducting the poll had a skewed sample; second, people who said they were going to vote for Kenner got lazy and did not show up at the voting booth; and third, some event happened the day before the election that changed people’s minds. Answer choice (E) explains why Muratori won even though in the polls right before the election people had supported Kenner. If Muratori’s people showed up 2:1 against Kenner then it favors Muratori significantly at the ballot box.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is irrelevant. Just because they have different positions on issues doesn’t tell us why the voters didn’t show up for Kenner.
(B) this only makes things more puzzling. If Muratori had held elected office for many years, then maybe Muratori would have an advantage, but Kenner having an advantage doesn’t explain Kenner’s failure to win.
(C) is irrelevant. If this was discovered in the year leading up to the election, then why did voters change their minds last minute? It doesn’t make sense.
(D) is also irrelevant. What happened six months ago doesn’t explain the recent change of heart.

[Carlystern]

The correct answer seems extremely subjective. Important is the key? So "important" somehow means that this guy could have won because that somehow means that people may show up more to vote for M?

So odd...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I see your point Carly, but remember, the question stem only asks for an answer that "most helps resolve" the apparent discrepancy. You'll find these answers sometimes only help get you there, but still need a little extra push from you.

Hope that helps!

[marykatemoller]

How "recent" is "recent" on the LSAT?

[tommywallach]

There's no definitive timeframe. It simply means "Not a long time ago," more or less.

-t

[julia.korolkova]

I am doing the LSAT in Australia and this question was tricky because we have compulsory voting here and the fact that election was important seemed irrelevant to me since here we all have to vote, otherwise we get fined. No other answer really seemed correct so I just picked D because at least that might refer to the sample not being representative of the eligible voters. After I went back to the question I figured that E was correct since the LSAT is referring to the US voting system which is not compulsory. I can see why E is correct but I have to say it requires an outside assumption that voting is not compulsory.

[jrnlsn.nelson]

I can see why E is correct but I have to say it requires an outside assumption that voting is not compulsory.

Interesting point julia.korolkova. If your nationality is influencing your test score, that's a serious problem. Yet, for this one at least, I think you can arrive at (E) fairly uncontroversially by way of process of elimination.

(A) Out of scope -- does not tell us why Muratori won the election despite the recent poll.

(B) Out of scope -- again, does not tell us why Muratori won the election despite the recent poll.

(C) This one may seem tempting, but it says "In the year leading up to the election..." This is again, out of scope, and does not help us to understand why Muratori won, despite the recent poll which indicated that Kenner would probably win.

I think the key to arriving at the correct answer for this problem is recognizing a critical phrase (bolded below) in the stimulus:

"In a poll conducted by interviewing eligible voters in their homes just before the recent election..."

Based on my experience with the LSAT, I can confidently say that the test makers want us to interpret "just before the recent election" as "the day before the election" or perhaps "the week before the election." If you're able to infer this, then I think this problem becomes fairly straightforward.

(D) Out of scope -- we know this is out of scope because it says "Six months before." Remember, the poll that indicated that Kenner was significantly ahead was administered "just before the recent election" -- which should be interpreted as "a day before" or "a week before."

(E) Here it is. Muratori's voters were more likely than Kenner's voters to describe the election as important. Thus we can infer that Muratori's voters turned out big on election day. We could also plausibly infer that Karl Rove was Muratori's campaign manager (that was a joke). Anyways, this does help us to resolve the apparent discrepancy. Even if this answer does not stick out to you as 100% correct, hopefully you can arrive here by POE.

Side note, apparently you can get slapped with a criminal conviction and a $170 court fee if you fail to vote in Australia -- hopefully you remembered to vote julia.korolkova...

I'd love to hear any additional thoughts on this one.