LSAT 148 – Section 4 – Question 05
LSAT 148 - Section 4 - Question 05
December 2016You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 1:18
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT148 S4 Q05 |
+LR
| Sufficient assumption +SA Conditional Reasoning +CondR Link Assumption +LinkA | A
0%
151
B
1%
151
C
91%
163
D
1%
153
E
7%
156
|
135 143 151 |
+Medium | 147.694 +SubsectionMedium |
Summary
The author concludes that the report won’t be effective. This is based on the following:
In order for the report to be effective, the commission must speak with a unified voice.
Individual members of the commission have repeatedly expressed their own opinions about stuff related to the report before the report was completed.
In order for the report to be effective, the commission must speak with a unified voice.
Individual members of the commission have repeatedly expressed their own opinions about stuff related to the report before the report was completed.
Missing Connection
We have a premise that tells us what’s required for the report to be effective — the commission must speak with a unified voice. So if we can learn that the commission is NOT speaking with a unified voice, then the report won’t be effective.
Do we have enough to establish that the commission is not speaking with a unified voice? Not quite — the other premise tells us that individual members have expressed their own opinions before the report was completed. Does that constitute lack of a unified voice? We don’t know. To make the argument valid, then, we want to establish that if individual members of the commission speak about stuff related to the report before it’s completed, that implies the commission is not speaking with a unified voice.
Do we have enough to establish that the commission is not speaking with a unified voice? Not quite — the other premise tells us that individual members have expressed their own opinions before the report was completed. Does that constitute lack of a unified voice? We don’t know. To make the argument valid, then, we want to establish that if individual members of the commission speak about stuff related to the report before it’s completed, that implies the commission is not speaking with a unified voice.
A
Commission members who have expressed their opinions about disaster preparedness in the news media have also emphasized their commitment to producing an effective report.
(A) doesn’t establish that the commission has been speaking without a unified voice.
B
News organizations should not provide a platform for members of the commission to express their opinions about disaster preparedness if doing so will undermine the effectiveness of the commission’s report.
What news organizations should do doesn’t establish that the commission has been speaking without a unified voice.
C
The commission will be able to speak with a uniform voice only if individual members’ opinions about disaster preparedness are not made public before the report is completed.
(C) establishes that in order for the commission to speak with a unified voice, individual members’ opinions cannot be made public before the report is completed. We know from a premise that members’ opinions have been made public before completion. So (C) establishes that the commission hasn’t been speaking with a unified voice. This allows us to conclude the report won’t be effective.
D
If commission members had not expressed their opinions about disaster preparedness in the news media before the report was completed, there would have been much public speculation about what those views were.
(D) doesn’t establish that the commission is speaking without a unified voice.
E
The commission’s report will not be effective if some of the commission members already had opinions about the nation’s disaster preparedness even before the commission was formed.
We don’t know from the premises that any members already had opinions before the commission was formed. We know they have expressed opinions before completion of the report. But this doesn’t imply that they had any opinion before the formation of the commission.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 148 Explanations
Section 1 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 2 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 3 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Section 4 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.