LSAT (Law School Admission Test)Logical ReasoningMedium
A political analyst states: 'Voter turnout in the last election was surprisingly high, especially among younger demographics. This indicates a renewed interest in civic engagement across the country.' Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the political analyst's conclusion?
- AThe overall number of registered voters has increased significantly in recent years.
- BThe election featured a highly controversial ballot measure that drew significant public attention.
- CMany young voters reported feeling unrepresented by the major political parties.
- DPrevious elections had significantly lower turnout rates among young voters.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. The election featured a highly controversial ballot measure that drew significant public attention.
The analyst concludes 'renewed interest in civic engagement' based on high turnout. Option A provides an alternative cause for the high turnout: a specific, highly controversial ballot measure. If the high turnout was due to this single issue rather than a general renewed interest, then the analyst's conclusion is weakened.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. An increase in registered voters might explain higher overall turnout, but the analyst specifically mentions 'renewed interest in civic engagement across the country' as the cause, not merely more eligible voters.
- C. This describes a sentiment among young voters but does not explain *why* turnout was high, nor does it weaken the conclusion about renewed interest.
- D. This strengthens the idea that the recent turnout was 'surprisingly high,' but does not weaken the *reasoning* for the high turnout.
Alternative Explanation for Data
A flaw in reasoning where an observed phenomenon or data point is attributed to one cause, but there is another plausible and distinct cause that could also account for the observation.
- Challenges the proposed cause
- Suggests another reason for the observation
- Weakens the argument's conclusion
Memory trick: Don't just believe the first story for the data!