June 2010 LSAT Section 5 Question 24

Which one of the following is given by the passage as a reason for the difficulty a lawyer would have in determining ...

Talley on January 29, 2020

Example 2- Cannot Be True Video

In Example 2, answer A, why can we make an assumption that there is a relationship between SRS and SC-->MR? I don't see any rule/property which would allow us to assume there is a relationship.

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Skylar on February 1, 2020

@Talley, happy to help.

This question is asking for what must be false, so we are only looking to determine possibilities rather than what has to be true.

The passage tells us that "If Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, McConnell will scrutinize Lutz's record for any hints of scandal," so we know: not LCF -> SRS.

If McConnell scrutinizes the record, there are only two possible outcomes. She could either find scandal (SC), or she could not find scandal (not SC).

The passage tells us that "Anything of a scandalous nature would increase McConnell's chances of winning, and she would campaign for election," which allows us to state: SC -> MR. (Note that McConnell "campaigning for election" is equal to McConnell running.)

The passage also says that "If Lutz has a clean record, however, McConnell will not run against him." So, we know: not SC -> not MR.

Therefore, it could be possible that Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, so McConnell scruitines the record, finds scandal, and decides to run. It could also be possible that Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, so McConnell scruitines the record but finds no scandal, and decides not to run. Since this is a possibility, (A) is incorrect.

Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!