Some people think that in every barrel of politicians there are only a few rotten ones. But if deceit is a quality o...
shylahmarieg@gmail.comApril 12, 2018
Confused
With this question and some others, I am confused about how to distinguish facts from arguments. For example, I figured that this question was an argument when it was a set of facts. What am I doing wrong?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Hey there, thanks for your post. This is a great question - and this skill is really at the heart of LSAT success. With careful practice, you can develop better accuracy in distinguishing between sets of facts and arguments.
You are not wrong, actually, that this stimulus presents an argument. The conclusion of the stimulus is "I believe all effective politicians are rotten." The premises in support are (1) effective politicians "must be deceitful in order to do the job properly" and (2) "someone who is scrupulously honest about obeying the rules of society will never be an effective politician."
Now, this is a "Cannot Be True" question, so the correct answer choice is the one that directly contradicts some part of the stimulus (whether a premise or the conclusion itself). Answer choice (E) does this: the stimulus tells us that NO person who is scrupulously honest is an effective politician, so (E) cannot be true.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
