A common misconception on the LSAT is that “principle questions” are a thing. In fact, the word “principle” appears in multiple question types which you should treat very differently. The most important thing to look for when you see the word “principle” is whether the principle points up or down. Some questions (PSAa or Rule Application questions) give us a principle in the stimulus and ask us to apply it down to the answer choices. These are akin to Most Strongly Supported questions, where we must be cautious of overstrong language and stick only to inferences supported by the stimulus.

This question (a PSAr or Find The Rule question) does the opposite: it presents a bunch of principles in the answer choices and asks us to apply them up to the stimulus in an effort to justify the argument. These are akin to Strengthen questions, where overstrong language is completely fine and we’re hoping to bridge any gaps in the argument we can find.

PSAr questions tend to follow routine patterns, and our approach can therefore be similarly routine. First, it’s critical to identify the argument’s conclusion and the premise(s) that seek to support it. In a shockingly high proportion of PSAr questions, the correct answer will take the form: Premise → Conclusion.

Like in normal Strengthen questions, though, it’s also important to note any common flaws you see, or (especially) subtle jumps from one concept to another (e.g. from talking about athletes to talking about professional athletes). Correct answers that address weaknesses like these are common as well.

The skill of recognizing context is critical to an efficient reading of this stimulus. The very first word indicates a concession – “although it may be true that blah blah blah…now I’m gonna get to my actual point.” This bit might end up being important to our overall understanding of the argument, but it won’t be a premise or conclusion.

Usefully, though, concessions are often (not always!) followed by conclusions, as happens here:

Conclusion: It should not have been included in the story.

Okay that “it” is referential – we need to go back and figure out what “it” means to make sense of the conclusion. Here, “it” is the subject of the previous clause – it’s the political message.

Conclusion: The political message should not have been included in this story.

That’s better. Now let’s look at why the Critic thinks it shouldn’t have been included:

Premise 1: The story’s primary focus is humor.
Premise 2: The political message distracts from the humor.

In short, then, this argument says “This is a humor story, and your manifesto distracts from the humor. You shouldn’t have put it in there!”

We mentioned above that in a shockingly high proportion of PSAr questions, the correct answer will take the form: Premise → Conclusion. That happens here. The rule we can anticipate will be some version of “don’t include stuff that distracts from the primary focus”:

distracts-primary-focus → /include

If you didn’t anticipate this principle or something close to it, you should do some untimed practice where you filter for easy/easiest PSAr questions, hide the answer choices, and only give yourself a point if you correctly anticipate the rule featured in the correct answer.