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 ...

sakshi_h on May 10, 2022

Example 2 Question...

Hello, I chose answer C for this question because I thought the scenario where Lutz DOES have a large campaign fund wouldn't be relevant. To explain further, wouldn't it be the case that McConnell only looks into Lutz's record IF he does NOT have a large campaign fund? In other words, McConnell isn't even going to look at Lutz's record unless there is NOT a large campaign fund. So presumably, there is not a large campaign fund, McConnell then looks into his record and since answer choice (C) dictates that McConnell finds scandalous items, in this case, she would have to run against him, thereby making (C) the correct answer since it cannot be true. I don't understand why the alternative scenario would be relevant since McConnell wouldn't even look into Lutz's record if he has a large campaign fund. I hope this makes sense. Thanks.

Replies

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

Already have an account? log in

Naryan-Shukle on May 11, 2022

Hi @Sakshi-Hasija,

I think the best way to respond here is to answer your question directly, then elaborate.

"Wouldn't it be the case that McConnell only looks into Lutz' record IF he does NOT have a large campaign fund?"

No...why would that be the case? What rule is there telling us McConnell can only look into Lutz IF he doesn't have a massive campaign fund? We have nothing telling us this. That is an outside assumption you brought in. Remember, this test assesses your ability to act like a lawyer, and in this profession absolutely nothing can be assumed.

Where some of this confusion might stem from is by treating something existing, and something being known to exist, as the same thing. This is called a Perception vs Reality Flaw, and the Errors in Reasoning lesson will really help to sort this one out.

Whether or not Lutz has some dirty dealings is totally independent of McConnell knowing about it.

Here's an example to illustrate how (C) can absolutely be true. Let's pretend Lutz is a Batman-esque politician that assassinated his rivals. Whether or not McConnell knows about these murders...well this has zero effect on whether or not they happened.

Let's also pretend that Lutz is supported by the mob, and has a MASSIVE campaign fund. All we need to see is rule #1

If Mass.CF----->M won't Run.

There we go. A situation where Lutz most definitely has some scandal in his past (murder in fact), and McConnell does not run. Whether or not McConnell knows makes no difference. She knew? Doesn't matter, massive campaign fund=doesn't run. She didn't know? Then it's a non-issue.

Hopefully this helps clear up the confusion a bit. If you have any other question don't hesitate to reach out!

sakshi_h on May 11, 2022

Hi Naryan,

Yes, thank you so much! This makes sense.