LSAT Explanation PT 34, S3, Q12: Politician: My opponents argue that the

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following provides the most logical completion of the critic's statement? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Most Strongly supported question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the passage. The politician argues that compromising the principles of the city's charter is equivalent to betraying the city founders' goals. The critic points out a flaw in the politician's argument, stating that it depends on a misleading use of a particular term. Our task is to identify that term by completing the critic's statement.

The question type is "Most Strongly Supported" (MSS), which means we need to find the answer choice that best completes the critic's statement based on the information provided in the passage.

Now, let's go through each answer choice:

a) Betray - The politician uses "betray" to describe compromising the city founders' goals, but the usage is consistent and clear. Therefore, it's not the misleading term.

b) Common - The term "common" is used twice in the passage, but both instances have the same meaning, so it's not misleading.

c) Compromise - This is the correct answer. The politician uses "compromise" in two different ways. First, it's used to describe city leaders working together and setting aside differences. Second, it's used to mean betraying or undermining the principles of the city's charter. The misleading use of "compromise" is the flaw in the politician's argument, as the critic points out.

d) Principles - While "principles" is mentioned multiple times, its meaning remains consistent, referring to the foundational guidelines of the city's charter. It's not used in a misleading way.

e) Opponents - The term "opponents" refers to the same group of people in both instances, so it's not misleading.

To better understand the misleading use of "compromise," consider this example: Imagine a sports team where players need to compromise on their individual playstyles to work better as a team (first meaning of compromise). Now, suppose someone argues that compromising in this way would compromise the integrity of the sport itself (second meaning of compromise). This argument would be flawed, as it confuses the two meanings of "compromise."

In conclusion, the most logical completion of the critic's statement is "compromise" (answer choice C), as it's used in a misleading way by the politician, confusing the two meanings of the term.