LSAT 131 – Section 2 – Question 23

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 23

December 2009

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:23

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
PT131 S2 Q23
+LR
Most strongly supported +MSS
Principle +Princ
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
2%
157
B
2%
156
C
5%
160
D
68%
166
E
23%
161
145
156
168
 +Harder 147.936 +SubsectionMedium

This year a flood devastated a small river town. Hollyville, also a river town, responded with an outpouring of aid in which a majority of its residents participated, a proportion that far surpassed that of a few years ago when Hollyville sent aid to victims of a highly publicized earthquake. This year’s circumstances were a reversal of last year’s, when Hollyville itself was the scene of a deadly tornado and so the recipient rather than the supplier of emergency aid.

Summary
A few years ago, some Hollyville residents helped send aid to victims of an earthquake. Last year, Hollyville was hit by a tornado and received aid from others. This year, after a flood hit a different town, most Hollyville residents sent aid to that town. The proportion of Hollyville residents who sent aid this year was much higher than the proportion that sent aid a few years ago, before Hollyville itself had been hit by a natural disaster.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Hollyville’s receipt of aid after a tornado may have increased the proportion of Hollyville residents willing to donate to others after a natural disaster.

A
People are more likely to aid people they know than they are to aid strangers.
Unsupported. We don’t know whether any of the recipients of aid were known or strangers to the people who gave the aid. So there’s no evidence that people are more likely to aid people they know.
B
Those who have received aid are more likely to be in favor of government relief programs than are those who have not.
Unsupported. The stimulus never mentions government relief programs or whether Hollyville residents became more likely to support such programs after receiving aid.
C
The amount of aid that victims of a disaster receive is unrelated to the extent to which the disaster is publicized.
Unsupported. We don’t know the amount of aid anyone received or its relationship to the level of publicity. Although we know about the proportion of Hollyville residents who donated, that doesn’t tell us about the amount of aid received by the people to whom Hollyville donated.
D
Once a disaster has struck them, people are more likely to aid others in need than they were before the disaster.
Strongly supported. A higher proportion of Hollyville residents donated this year compared to a few years ago after Hollyville was hit by a natural disaster (tornado) last year and received aid from others.
E
People are more likely to aid those who have experienced a hardship similar to one they themselves have experienced than to aid those who have experienced a dissimilar hardship.
Unsupported. Hollyville experienced a tornado. Other towns experienced an earthquake and flooding. There’s no basis to say that a tornado is more similar to what Hollyville experienced than is an earthquake.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply