read this ny times article about bush and faith

[buster]

You're absolutely right; I should have explained my answer. Keeping in mind that the question was not written by an actual LSAT author, and finding none of the other answers satisfactory, I made the assumption that E was intended to be interpreted as "Not all Presidents base their decisions upon their faith-based beliefs." This is not the sort of assumption I would have made on an actual LSAT question.

I'm goin' with E.

are you joking?  the stimulus directly contradicts E.

[Munkeysgrrl]

lol, its a totally made up question so i dont know if its really worth debating, but i  think B is a bad answer.

lol, they are all pretty bad, but nothing is really Necessary in any of the options.  I reasoned that B is the best choice b/c to make a logical inference, you have to trust the source.  None of the options were good.  D might have been okay if you took out the crap about being worth voting for if he made different decisions.  It was about what he based them on, not whether they were different.     

[cascagrossa]

screw the question...LETS GO KERRY !!

[Hurley97]

The question is not an actual LSAT question (of course) because it was written by yours truly.  I hope that everyone got that.

The correct answer is "D".

The answer choice reads:

A President who does not base his decisions on faith would make different decisions than the current president, and thus be worth voting for.

Cascagrossa's claim in the beginning of this thread was that he doesn't understand how any rational person could vote for a man who bases the world's most important decisions on his personal faith.  The assumption he makes is that a President who does not base his beliefs on faith would make different decisions than Bush has.

Now, don't get me wrong here...  I am not a Bush supporter.  I am just a little tired of hearing people say that Bush bases all of his decisions upon his faith, and therefore he is doing something wrong.  I don't like this criticism because it ignores that possible fact that someone who has absolutely no faith in their life could very well make the same decisions. 

Furthermore, in the 3rd debate John Kerry explicitly stated that he also allows his faith to guide his decisions in politics.  He, of course, has drawn a line at how far that goes, but then again so does Bush.  But, I don't hear anyone complaining about Kerry pushing initiatives to help the homeless, the sick, and the orphaned.  He bases these decisions on his Catholic beliefs, though.

So, here is what I think that people REALLY mean when express negative opinions about Bush's faith-guided policies.  What they don't like is the way that Bush makes certain decisions that they disagree with, and THEN says that he bases those decisions on faith.

Both the Atheist and the devout religious zealot would say 'yes' and 'amen' at the need for more democracy in the world.  But, Bush's decision to enact that desire with the sword of our powerful military, and the contextualize it with a few quotes from the Psalms is cause for great concern.

Perhaps there can be some more dialogue on this. 

My main point is to say that the correct answer choice is 'D'.  Sorry to all of those who didn't think that it was written clearly enough.  I am an amateur LSAT writer!

[TheDecline]

The facts: Bush is a messenger from God, Kerry is a messenger from Satan.  Big whoop, life goes on. 

[Tobias Beecher]

Go Kerry!

[I don't know why I'm rooting for the flip flopper 

[buster]

The premise did not refer to the substance of the decisions, just the thinking behind them. That's why I didn't pick D and still don't think it's correct. Not bad, though -- good luck with your LSAT author career! 

The question is not an actual LSAT question (of course) because it was written by yours truly.  I hope that everyone got that.

The correct answer is "D".

The answer choice reads:

A President who does not base his decisions on faith would make different decisions than the current president, and thus be worth voting for.

Cascagrossa's claim in the beginning of this thread was that he doesn't understand how any rational person could vote for a man who bases the world's most important decisions on his personal faith.  The assumption he makes is that a President who does not base his beliefs on faith would make different decisions than Bush has.

Now, don't get me wrong here...  I am not a Bush supporter.  I am just a little tired of hearing people say that Bush bases all of his decisions upon his faith, and therefore he is doing something wrong.  I don't like this criticism because it ignores that possible fact that someone who has absolutely no faith in their life could very well make the same decisions. 

Furthermore, in the 3rd debate John Kerry explicitly stated that he also allows his faith to guide his decisions in politics.  He, of course, has drawn a line at how far that goes, but then again so does Bush.  But, I don't hear anyone complaining about Kerry pushing initiatives to help the homeless, the sick, and the orphaned.  He bases these decisions on his Catholic beliefs, though.

So, here is what I think that people REALLY mean when express negative opinions about Bush's faith-guided policies.  What they don't like is the way that Bush makes certain decisions that they disagree with, and THEN says that he bases those decisions on faith.

Both the Atheist and the devout religious zealot would say 'yes' and 'amen' at the need for more democracy in the world.  But, Bush's decision to enact that desire with the sword of our powerful military, and the contextualize it with a few quotes from the Psalms is cause for great concern.

Perhaps there can be some more dialogue on this. 

My main point is to say that the correct answer choice is 'D'.  Sorry to all of those who didn't think that it was written clearly enough.  I am an amateur LSAT writer!

[The ZAPINATOR]

I'm going to just randomly fill in a bubble, as I did with all the bubbles on the LSAT.  Somehow, my method worked out.

ZAP