If legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents, they must

Question

If legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents, they must be sure to consider what the consequences of enacting a proposed law will actually be. Contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents. Concerned primarily with advancing their own political careers, legislators present legislation in polemical terms; this arouses in their colleagues either repugnance or enthusiasm for the legislation.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Legislation will not benefit constituents unless legislators become less concerned with their own careers.

(B) Legislatures that enact laws that benefit constituents are successful legislatures.

(C) The passage of laws cannot benefit constituents unless constituents generally adhere to those laws.

(D) Legislators considering a proposed law for which they have repugnance or enthusiasm do not consider the consequences that it will actually have.

(E) The inability of legislators to consider the actual consequences of enacting a proposed law is due to their strong feelings about that law.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Weird. What the hell is the conclusion here? I think it’s probably “contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents.” Like this:

If legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents, they must be sure to consider the consequences of the legislation. But legislators present legislation in polemical terms. And presenting legislation in polemical terms arouses either repugnance or enthusiasm. (Assumption: If you’re enthused or… repugnated?repugnified? repugnatized?… I vote for “repugned”… then you can’t consider the consequences of the legislation.) THEREFORE, contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents.

That’s the only way to make the argument make sense. Note that I’ve already plugged in the assumption of the argument. There’s a disconnect between enthused/repugned and “can’t consider the consequences.” If we make the assumption explicit, and rearrange the terms, it looks like it makes sense.

The question stem here is formally a Necessary Assumption—it asks for an assumption “on which the argument depends.” But my prediction seems like it’s actually necessary  and  sufficient. If it’s not true, the argument sucks, and if it  is  true, the argument is pretty solid. Let’s see if it’s there.

A) Definitely not what we’re looking for. I really think the correct answer is going to plug the hole in the argument. It just didn’t make sense without the assumption we predicted, and I think the LSAT will reward us for recognizing that. Anyway, even if this answer isn’t true, it doesn’t ruin the argument. (If legislators remained concerned only with their careers, they could still learn to create legislation that benefits their constituents.) Which means it’s not necessary. Which means it’s not the answer.

B) Same explanation as B. Not what we’re looking for, and even if it’s not true it wouldn’t ruin the argument.

C) Same explanation as A and B. Not what we’re looking for, and even if it’s not true it wouldn’t ruin the argument. No way.

D) Yep, exactly. This matches our prediction. If this answer is not true, the argument can’t possibly make any sense. So it’s a necessary component of the argument.

E) Tough one, but I think this answer proves too much. It’s more than is  necessary . D did a better job of simply connecting enthusiasm/repugnance to inability to consider consequences, which was exactly what we needed. This one doesn’t specifically say enthusiasm/repugnance, and makes a broader claim that an inability to consider consequences is caused by strong feelings. That’s not necessary. Maybe there are other things besides strong feelings that would also cause an inability to consider consequences. So this answer can be untrue without ruining the argument.

It’s a tough question. Our answer is D.

tkorzhan1995 · Answer

I will go with D
(D) Legislators considering a proposed law for which they have repugnance or enthusiasm do not consider the consequences that it will actually have.

It ties failure to consider concequences (mentioned in the beginning of the argument) with feelings of enth and repugn.

unraveled · Answer

If legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents, they must be sure to consider what the consequences of enacting a proposed law will actually be.  Contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents. Concerned primarily with advancing their own political careers, legislators present legislation in polemical terms; this arouses in their colleagues either repugnance or enthusiasm for the legislation.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Legislation  will not benefit constituents unless  legislators become less concerned with their own careers. - WRONG. Two things are wrong. One that it is a strong claim and second that the reasoning offered in not necessary. The if conditionality still remains as in with less concern also legislation may benefit. This gets you thinking.

(B) Legislatures that enact laws that benefit constituents are  successful legislatures . - WRONG. Goes in a direction that is not relevant to passage.

(C) The passage of laws  cannot benefit  constituents  unless constituents generally adhere to those laws . - WRONG. Adhering is again irrelevant. Big claim not necessarily true.

(D) Legislators considering a proposed law for which they have repugnance or enthusiasm  do not consider the consequences that it will actually have . - CORRECT. Had they had considered then the passage would not have remained as it is presented.

(E) The inability of legislators to consider the actual consequences of enacting a proposed law is due to their  strong feelings about that law . - WRONG. What if not? Then this would not make much sense. So, this offers not a concrete situation that is necessary to the passage's conclusion.

Answer D.

PSKhore · Answer

The argument depends on the assumption that legislators who feel  repugnance or enthusiasm  for a proposed law  do not consider the actual consequences  of that law. This links the cause (strong feelings due to polemical presentation) to the effect (failure to consider consequences and, therefore, to enact beneficial laws).

If legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents, they must

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

If legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents, they must

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards