LSAT 117 – Section 3 – Question 08

LSAT 117 - Section 3 - Question 08

October 2004

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:02

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT117 S3 Q08
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
88%
167
B
0%
159
C
3%
160
D
6%
158
E
2%
159
131
143
154
 +Medium 146.848 +SubsectionMedium

Rossi: It is undemocratic for people to live under a government in which their interests are not represented. So children should have the right to vote, since sometimes the interests of children are different from those of their parents.

Smith: Granted, children’s interests are not always the same as their parents’; governmental deficits incurred by their parents’ generation will later affect their own generation’s standard of living. But even if children are told about the issues affecting them, which is not generally the case, their conceptions of what can or should be done are too simple, and their time horizons are radically different from those of adults, so we cannot give them the responsibility of voting.

Summarize Argument
Rossi claims that children should have the right to vote. To support this conclusion, Rossi states a principle that it is undemocratic for anyone to live under a government that doesn’t represent their interests. According to Rossi, children’s interests can differ from their parents’ interests—presumably making it undemocratic to ban children from voting.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Rossi’s argument starts with the general principle that it’s undemocratic not to represent citizens’ interests. Rossi then points out a particular case where that principle is violated: children’s interests aren’t always represented by their parents. Based on this, Rossi concludes that we should change our system so the principle is respected, by allowing children to vote.

A
It makes an appeal to a general principle.
Rossi appeals to the general principle that it’s undemocratic for a government not to represent the interests of all those living under it. The apparent violation of this principle leads to Rossi’s conclusion that children should get to vote.
B
It denies the good faith of an opponent.
Rossi doesn’t mention any opponents, and isn’t directly responding to another argument. There’s no issue of good faith here.
C
It relies on evaluating the predictable consequences of a proposal.
Rossi doesn’t address any predictable consequences of the proposal to allow children to vote (or of any other proposal).
D
It substitutes description for giving a rationale for a policy.
Rossi does give a rational for the proposed policy of allowing children to vote: that it would make society more democratic.
E
It employs a term on two different occasions in different senses.
There’s no term that Rossi uses to mean two different things on two different occasions. All the terms in Rossi’s argument appear to mean the same thing every time they’re used.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 117 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply