Law School Discussion

Kaplan 180 Book - Flawed


  • ****
  • 195
    • View Profile
Kaplan 180 Book - Flawed
« on: August 02, 2005, 07:37:37 PM »
I'm sure it's widely known that several of Kaplan's questions are flawed, and it's likely that any questions not developed by LSAC are flawed.  Is this one of them?

A political candidate committed to the principal tenets of a political party may not always explain the implications of his or her party commitment to the voters in full detail.  Adele Richardson, for example, is a minor-party candidate in contention for a seat on the school board.  She is not likely to inform conservative voters in her district that the national leadership of her party has recently recommended that school curricula be more closely monitored by agencies of the federal government.

Which one of the following is not assumed or implied by the passage above?

(A) A political candidate is likely to be more interested in winning an election than in proselytizing the electorate.
(B) The candidate of any party is likely to support the policy decisions made by the national leadership.
(C) All candidates for such community positions as membership on the board must have commitments to national parties.
(D) Conservatives in Adele Richardson's district do not support federal intervention in decisions made by community school officials.
(E) Voters in Adele Richardson's district are not fully aware of the policy statements made by the national leadership of her party.

Kaplan marks the answer as C.  While C is correct, this is not a question that asks for the BEST answer.  D could also be true.  Couldn't Adele completely overlook the conservatives since (hypothetically) they are such a small minority of her constituants?  In that case, she wouldn't assume anything about their beliefs because she wouldn't care.  Also, why does it have to be the conservatives that do not support federal inteverntion?  Why can't the conservatives be in favor of it and the liberals and moderates be against it?