LSAT-8-2-3

3. Citizen of Mooresville: Mooresville's current city council is having a ruinous effect on municipal finances. Since a majority of the incumbents are running for reelection, I am going to campaign against all these incumbents in the upcoming city council election. The only incumbent I will support and vote for is the one who represents my own neighborhood, because she has the experience necessary to ensure that our neighborhoods interests are served. If everyone in Mooresville would follow my example, we could substantially change the council's membership. Assuming that each citizen of Mooresville is allowed to vote only for a city council representative from his or her own neighborhood, for the council's membership to be changed substantially, it must be true that

(A) at least some other voters in Mooresville do not make the same exception for their own incumbent in the upcoming election

(B) most of the eligible voters in Mooresville vote in the upcoming election

(C) few of the incumbents on the Mooresville city council have run for reelection in previous elections

(D) all of the seats on the Mooresville city council are filled by incumbents whose terms are expiring

(E) none of the cha1lengers in the upcoming election for seats on Mooresville's city council are better able to serve the interests of their neighborhoods than were the incumbents

The Key is A. Why? Thanks a lot!

the stimulus:

I am going to campaign against all the incumbents. ---but i make exception:  if the incumbent represents my own neighborhood, i may vote for her/him.

Since the stimulus has assumed that "each citizen of Mooresville is allowed to vote only for a city council representative from his or her own neighborhood",
So in order to change the landscape of the council, there must be some voters who do not vote only for a person from her own neighborhood, namely, do not make the exception as i may make.(A)

"The only incumbent I will support and vote for is the one who represents my own neighborhood..... If everyone in Mooresville would follow my example, we could substantially change the council's membership. "

"Assuming that each citizen of Mooresville is allowed to vote only for a city council representative from his or her own neighborhood", if everyone follows that particular's citizen's example, then each incumbent that runs for re-election will receive votes from all voters from his own neighborhood.

Since "a majority of the incumbents are running for reelection", then these incumbents will be voted back to the office, thus, council's membership will NOT be changed substantially.

In Formal Logic, the opposite of all voters is not all voters. And not all voters follow the example = at least some voters do not follow the example.

Answer A is the only answer that contains at least some voters do not, therefore, it is correct.

We can also use process of elimination.

(B) most of the eligible voters in Mooresville vote in the upcoming election

Wrong. Because the number of eligible voters actually voted is irrelevant. What matters is the who the actual voters voted for. If 100 out of 100 eligible voters chose to vote, and all voted Joe, it gives the exact same result as if 20 out of 100 eligible voters chose to vote, and all voted Joe. Joe will win either way.

(C) few of the incumbents on the Mooresville city council have run for reelection in previous elections

Wrong. It doesn't matter what the incumbents did before. Note that in the passage itself, it was clearly stated that "a majority of the incumbents are running for reelection" this time.

(D) all of the seats on the Mooresville city council are filled by incumbents whose terms are expiring

Wrong. Absolute language.  What if Not All (for example, 99%, instead of 100%) of terms are expiring? It will produce the exact same result. So this is definitely wrong for a Must Be True question.

(E) none of the challengers in the upcoming election for seats on Mooresville's city council are better able to serve the interests of their neighborhoods than were the incumbents

Wrong. Absolute language. What if only  1 out of 100 challengers are better able to serve the interests of their neighborhoods than were the incumbents? It doesn't change the outcome at all. So this is definitely wrong for a Must Be True question.

{"Assuming that each citizen of Mooresville is allowed to vote only for a city council representative from his or her own neighborhood", if everyone follows that particular's citizen's example, then each incumbent that runs for re-election will receive votes from all voters from his own neighborhood.

Since "a majority of the incumbents are running for reelection", then these incumbents will be voted back to the office, thus, council's membership will NOT be changed substantially.}

Isn't this part contradictory to the stimulus "If everyone in Mooresville would follow my example, we could substantially change the council's membership."?

I think "make the same exception" in A is different from "follow the example" in the stimulus.

欢迎讨论!

I think the citizen's statement in the original stimulus contains a logical flaw. He seems to think if everyone "follow his example", actually means everyone votes for his particular candidate, not "making the same type of exception for candidates in their own neighborhoods".

Personally, I think the language in the question is highly ambiguous and open to intepretations. And within 1 minute and 20 seconds we have on the exam (per question), we really don't have time to dive into the details. I would just use process of elimination and get to "A" instead of use any type of logic.

I  understand this stimulus in the very opposite way:

1. my example is to vote for who represents my own neighborhood

2  everyone  follow my example ------we could substantailly change the council's membership

3.everyone vote for who represents his own neighborhood-----we could substantailly change the council's membership

But if choose A, means some do not vote for who represents their own neighborhood----

how can you get the conclusion -----we could substantailly change the concil's membership?

I still don't get it.

one important point here is "I am going to campaign against all these incumbents in the upcoming city council election. "

I would rather say that this is the focus of the "example" that the guy emphazies.

It follows that, if everyone follows his expample to vote against all the incumbents, the membership of the council would be changed.

However, if everyone makes the exception as he does, namely, votes for the incumbents representing the voter's community, all the incumbents would be therefore voted back to the office, since each voter is permitted to vote for the representive of her own community only. Therefore, for the council to be changed dramatically, at least some of the voters should not make the same exception.

That is why i said that "follow the example" is a little bit from "make the same exception"

but the question says, each citizen is allowed to vote only for a city council representative from his or her neighborhood,then how could the answer A be possible? since A says at least some other voters do not make the same exception，but the fact is that they are only allowed to vote as the exception indicates.

搞不懂啦

3. Citizen of Mooresville: Mooresville's current city council is having a ruinous effect on municipal finances. Since a majority of the incumbents are running for reelection, I am going to campaign against all these incumbents in the upcoming city council election. The only incumbent I will support and vote for is the one who represents my own neighborhood, because she has the experience necessary to ensure that our neighborhoods interests are served. If everyone in Mooresville would follow my example, we could substantially change the council's membership.

This is an assumption type of question; you should first find out what is the conclusion of this argument and use negation technique to test the answer. If weaken the argument after negation then it should be the assumption of the argument.

Assuming that each citizen of Mooresville is allowed to vote only for a city council representative from his or her own neighborhood, for the council's membership to be changed substantially, it must be true that

 (A) at least some other voters in Mooresville do not make the same exception for their own incumbent in the upcoming election

logically “AT LEAST SOME….NOT”’s negation is “SOME”

Negation: SOME voters in Mooresville make the same exception for their own incumbent in the upcoming election.

If some voters support and vote for the one who represents their own neighborhood, the conclusion of this argument --- “substantially change the council's membership” --- can never happen.

This negation weaken the argument. (NOT + WEAKEN) So, this should be the assumption of this argument. A should be the right answer.

(B) most of the eligible voters in Mooresville vote in the upcoming election

(C) few of the incumbents on the Mooresville city council have run for reelection in previous elections

(D) all of the seats on the Mooresville city council are filled by incumbents whose terms are expiring

(E) none of the cha1lengers in the upcoming election for seats on Mooresville's city council are better able to serve the interests of their neighborhoods than were the incumbents