Q6 - Astorga's campaign promises are

[shaynfernandez]

I had no problem answering this question I just wanted to know the correct categorization of this question, it's a stem that I have not seen before. It reads:
"which one of the following is a questionable assumption on which the argument relies?"

I know two things about this stem:
1. It's a necessary assumption
2. It has a flaw

Would it be proper to categorize this as a ID flaw or necessary assumption question?

Thanks

[giladedelman]

Good question!

Whenever we see language that indicates a necessary assumption (in this case, "relies"), we need to deal with it as a necessary assumption question. So that's how I'd categorize this one.

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

Question - how do we know whether the conclusion is the first sentence or the last one? This is a really confusing argument.

Please help

[giladedelman]

That's a really good question.

Usually, we can use the "therefore test" to decide which is the conclusion and which is the support. However, in this case, it's not obvious whether "attempt to appease voters" supports "voters not being told what she intends to do" or vice versa. Both statements seem to follow from the premise that Astorga is just saying what she has learned voters want to hear. So, I'm heading in to the answer choices knowing that the assumption could be leading to either conclusion. Maybe there's an assumption about appeasing voters, maybe there's an assumption about what Astorga intends to do vs. what she says she'll do. The right answer, (E), ends up revolving around the second issue.

[WaltGrace1983]

I really like this problem because this really emphasizes having a solid understanding of the core. Without a strong understanding of the core, this question will be unnecessarily hard.

What Astorga says she will do is just what she has learned what the voters want her to do
→
Astorga is not telling the voters what she actually intends to do

The argument is assuming here that Astorga doesn't actually plan to do what the voters want her to do. Maybe she heard the voters' outcries and is really wanting to help them out by following up with their concerns.

(A) It doesn't matter what she is capable of at all. This is because the problem is all about intention. I could intend to fly my car to the moon but do I have to be capable of it? Actually, no. Capability is not our concern here. Stick to the core! It is all about intention! We don't care if she will be able to/is currently able to actually follow through!

(B) The voters don't matter here! Maybe the voters were lying! Either way, we are talking about the gap between what the voters SAY they want and what Astorga actually INTENDS to do. Stick to the core! We want something to do with Astorga's intention!

(C) We don't care if voters will be or won't be persuaded. We are focused on Astorga's intention.

(D) "Ought to do" is not "intends to do" and either way, we do not need to assume that Astorga has NO strong opinions. Maybe she has one strong opinion but hasn't voiced it yet. In addition, where is the talk about intention? Stick to the core!

(E) Finally! We get something about intention. This is a perfect answer that is both necessary and sufficient.

[asafezrati]

That's a really good question.

Usually, we can use the "therefore test" to decide which is the conclusion and which is the support. However, in this case, it's not obvious whether "attempt to appease voters" supports "voters not being told what she intends to do" or vice versa. Both statements seem to follow from the premise that Astorga is just saying what she has learned voters want to hear. So, I'm heading in to the answer choices knowing that the assumption could be leading to either conclusion. Maybe there's an assumption about appeasing voters, maybe there's an assumption about what Astorga intends to do vs. what she says she'll do. The right answer, (E), ends up revolving around the second issue.

This stimulus argument look very unusual compared to 99% of the other arguments I have seen in the LSAT. The question took me 30/45 seconds extra just because I was trying to decide which one of the two sentences (1st or last) is the conclusion. I tend to agree with the Manhattan LR book core explanation (promises are based on public opinion + promises only an attempt to please voters -> she isn't promising what she actually intends to do), but I can't really explain it. It also doesn't sit well with the first sentence looking more like an opinion (thus more likely to be the conclusion). Help?

Another question - is the right approach to this specific question should be to stop trying to discern the exact structure of the core and instead move on to the answer choices?

Thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

I think it's fair to characterize the 1st sentence as a Subsidiary Conclusion.

What she says she'll do is simply what opinion polls say voters want
THEREFORE
what she says she'll do is just an attempt to please voters
THEREFORE
voters aren't being told what she REALLY intends to do as mayor

That's the ol'
PREM -> SUBSIDIARY CONC -> MAIN CONC
structure

I would say that going to the answers without agonizing over which is which is a fair suggestion, since arguments that have this 3 part structure can test the link between PREM+SUBSIDIARY or test the link between SUBSIDIARY+CONC.

So as long you've differentiated between FACTS and OPINIONS, you could probably handle judging whether any of the answers involve an assumption being made going from FACTS to the OPINIONS.

Notice that if you swap the 2nd and 3rd ingredient from above, the argument doesn't make as much sense.

What she says she'll do is simply what opinion polls say voters want
THEREFORE
voters aren't being told what she REALLY intends to do as mayor
THEREFORE
what she says she'll do is just an attempt to please voters

The move from 1st to 2nd still makes sense to me, but the move from 2nd to 3rd doesn't seem to make as much sense.

However, all of this seems like a moot point to me because they gave us a THEREFORE right before the final sentence.

So it's WAY safer to assume that the last sentence is the final conclusion.

When the test wants us to make the 1st sentence MAIN CONC and the 3rd one SUBSIDIARY, it has to give us keywords to navigate that mess.

You'd see,
1st Sentence. After all, 2nd sentence and so 3rd sentence.

This would tell us that the 2nd and 3rd ideas are both under the umbrella of the 1st one.