LSAT 109 – Section 4 – Question 24

LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 24

December 2000

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:08

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT109 S4 Q24
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Net Effect +NetEff
A
8%
162
B
3%
159
C
3%
160
D
39%
164
E
47%
170
160
168
176
 +Hardest 150.49 +SubsectionHarder

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Party spokesperson: The opposition party’s proposal to stimulate economic activity in the province by refunding $600 million in provincial taxes to taxpayers, who could be expected to spend the money, envisions an illusory benefit. Since the province’s budget is required to be in balance, either new taxes would be needed to make up the shortfall, in which case the purpose of the refund would be defeated, or else workers for the province would be dismissed. So either the province’s taxpayers or its workers, who are also residents of the province, will have the $600 million to spend, but there can be no resulting net increase in spending to stimulate the province’s economy.

Summarize Argument
The author’s main conclusion is that the proposal to stimulate economic activity in the province by refunding $600 million won’t actually benefit the province’s taxpayers. This is because the province’s budget is required to be in balance, which the author believes implies that the province will need to issue new taxes or fire workers in order to make up for the $600 million that would be going back to taxpayers.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that in order to balance the budget, the province must issue new taxes or fire workers.

A
taxpayers of the province would spend outside the province at least $300 million of any $600 million refunded to them
If taxpayers spend the refund out of province, that’s less money that would be spent on economic activity in the province. This supports the author’s point that the proposal won’t result in a net increase in spending in the province.
B
taxpayers of the province would receive any refund in partial payments during the year rather than in a lump sum
Whether the refund is in one lump sum or multiple payments doesn’t change the overall amount of the refund or whether the need to balance the budget necessitates new taxes or firing workers.
C
province could assess new taxes in a way that would avoid angering taxpayers
The taxpayers’ emotions have no clear impact on this argument. The author’s reasoning relates to the need to balance the budget and recoup the $600 million being refunded.
D
province could, instead of refunding the money, stimulate its economy by redirecting its spending to use the $600 million for construction projects creating jobs around the province
This answer describes a solution that doesn’t involve refunding $600 million to taxpayers. But the conclusion is about the refund and whether it will achieve its goal. Pointing out that we can do something besides a refund doesn’t undermine the author’s point.
E
province could keep its workers and use them more effectively, with a resulting savings of $600 million in its out-of-province expenditures
This points out how the need to balance the budget doesn’t require new taxes or firing workers. If we could keep workers and recoup $600 million by saving on out-of-province expenditures, then we don’t need to tax the province’s taxpayers or fire workers.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 109 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply