Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elec

The conclusion is that only someone who truly understands economics has a shot at being elected.

So let's think about why. We're told that anyone who supports the tax plan is toast in this election, meaning only folks who don't support the tax plan have a shot at getting elected. Pretty straightforward.

Next, we're told that if someone understands economics, they won't support the tax plan. So we know that if you understand econ, you're out on the tax plan, and maybe you could get elected.

But what about someone who doesn't understand economics? We have no freaking idea.

There could, for instance, be people who don't understand economics, but who know it's good politics to oppose all new tax plans. There could be people who don't understand economics, but who oppose the tax plan because they dislike the font that was used in the pdf version of the plan. We could go on.

In other words, there might be folks who don't understand economics, but who also don't support the tax plan. These people could, theoretically, get elected. So then our conclusion -- that only someone who truly understands economics has a shot at being elected -- doesn't look so great. This is what's captured in (D).

I hope that helps!

Tough one to reason through.

It’s hard not to get caught up in the Sufficient/Necessary Condition analysis when you engage these tough LSAT questions.

Premise 1: Basically, if you are someone who understands Econ, then you would never support the tax plan.

Premise 2: And if you do support the next tax plan, you would never get elected.


Based on these premises, the author believes the ONLY way you can get elected is by truly understanding economics.

(If you have any chance of being elected, then you must be someone who truly understand Econ).


We are told in Premise 1, that if you are person who falls into the group of “understands Econ” ————> then you would never support the tax plan.

Because you don’t support the tax plan, you don’t fall into the “hole” of Premise 2 and therefore have a chance of being elected.


But what about people “who do NOT understand Econ.”?

These people could just as easily not “fall into the hole” of supporting the tax plan.

Nothing in the premises says that you must understand Econ to hate the tax plan. All the premises say is that IF you understand Econ, then you would never support the tax plan.

The author thinks you necessarily have to truly understand Econ to have a chance of being elected.

But under the premises given, you could just as easily have no understanding whatsoever of Econ. ———->

NOT support the tax plan (maybe you don’t like the guy proposing it and you would never back anything he puts forward, whether you understand it or not) ———>

and you would still have a chance of being elected because you avoid falling in the “hole” that is Premise 2.


The above logical line of thinking is basically what the author is missing out on. Some of the people that fall under the classification “people who do NOT understand Econ” still might have a chance at winning.

All these people would have to do is “not support the plan”.

In the premises, we are not told anything about the people who don’t understand Econ and might not support the plan. (Maybe thinking about in a sort of Venn diagram way would help sort out the information)

Therefore, to conclude that you need to have knowledge of Econ in order to have any chance at winning is a logical flaw.


D describes this group of people exactly. The author ignores the possibility that some people who…….

Do NOT support the tax plan (and therefore MIGHT have a chance to win) do NOT understand economics.

Answer is D.

Posted from my mobile device

MentorTutoring daagh VeritasKarishma

For GMAT, should we be doing questions tagged as LSAT?

GMATNinja Can you pls help with the explanation?

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.