LSAT 124 – Section 2 – Question 16

LSAT 124 - Section 2 - Question 16

December 2007

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:40

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
PT124 S2 Q16
+LR
+Exp
Except +Exc
Weaken +Weak
Net Effect +NetEff
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
3%
153
B
14%
161
C
78%
163
D
2%
153
E
3%
154
130
144
159
 +Medium 145.571 +SubsectionMedium

Editorialist: Some people propose that, to raise revenues and encourage conservation, our country’s taxes on oil, gasoline, and coal should be increased. Such a tax increase, however, would do more harm than good. By raising energy costs, the tax increase would decrease our competitiveness with other countries. Many families would be unfairly burdened with higher transportation costs. Finally, by reducing the demand for energy, the tax increase would reduce the number of energy production jobs.

Summarize Argument
The editorialist concludes that the proposed tax increase would to more harm than good. This is because the tax increase would cause a number of economic problems for the country in question.

Notable Assumptions
In order for the tax increase to do more harm than good, the economic problems the tax increase would cause must outweigh whatever benefits the tax would bring. The author must therefore assume that the economic problems are of greater concern for the country than whatever environmental and/or economic problems the tax may offset.

A
The editorialist’s country’s budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus benefiting the economy.
Contrary to what the editorialist suggests, the tax would in fact benefit the country’s economy. This weakens her argument.
B
Higher gasoline prices tend to lead to a cleaner environment, because people do less nonessential driving.
Despite the economic problems the tax might bring, the environmental benefits will be substantial. For one thing, people will drive less and consequently have a cleaner environment.
C
The proposed tax increase would be larger for some energy sources than for others.
The editorialist never specifies which energy source the tax will impact most. We don’t care about how the tax is distributed—we care about its effects.
D
Higher gasoline prices will encourage people to carpool, which will reduce individual transportation costs.
Even though the tax may hurt people in one way, the editorialist overlooks a distinct benefit: transportation costs will be lower.
E
The government would use the increase in tax revenue to create many more jobs than would be lost in the energy production sector.
While the tax would harm one sector, others would benefit from the tax increase. Thus, the editorialist can’t draw a broad economic conclusion from the tax’s effects on one sector.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 124 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply