LSAT 141 – Section 2 – Question 11

LSAT 141 - Section 2 - Question 11

September 2014

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:14

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
PT141 S2 Q11
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
A
9%
160
B
79%
164
C
1%
154
D
9%
154
E
2%
154
140
150
159
 +Medium 146.882 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Municipal legislator: The mayor proposes that the city accept a lighting company’s gift of several high-tech streetlights. Surely there would be no problem in accepting these despite some people’s fear that the company wants to influence the city’s decision regarding park lighting contracts. The only ulterior motive I can find is the company’s desire to have its products seen by mayors who will visit the city for an upcoming convention. In any case, favoritism in city contracts is prevented by our competitive-bidding procedure.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The municipal legislator argues that there is no issue with the city accepting high-tech streetlights as a gift from a lighting company, even though some people believe the company is trying to influence future lighting contracts. The legislator reasons that the company's only underlying goal is to showcase its products to visiting mayors, and that the city's bidding process would prevent preferential treatment in contracts anyway.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that there would be no issue with the city accepting a lighting company’s gift of several high-tech streetlights: “there would be no problem in accepting these”.

A
Some people’s fear that the company wants to influence the city’s decision regarding park lighting contracts is unfounded.
While the legislator acknowledges that some people have this fear, he does not claim it is unfounded. Instead, he provides evidence for why the city should still accept the streetlights, despite that fear.
B
The mayor’s proposal to accept the gift of streetlights should not be considered problematic.
This rephrases our conclusion that there is no problem with the city accepting the gifted streetlights.
C
It is not appropriate that any company should have the unique opportunity to display its products to mayors attending the upcoming convention.
The legislator does not make this claim. While he acknowledges that the lighting company desires this opportunity, he does not say the opportunity is inappropriate.
D
The city’s competitive-bidding procedure prevents favoritism in the dispensing of city contracts.
This is support for the conclusion. It is evidence for why there is no problem with the city accepting the gifted streetlights; any potential favoritism would be prevented by the city’s competitive-bidding process.
E
The lighting company’s desire to display its products to visiting mayors is the real motivation behind the suggested gift of streetlights.
This part of the stimulus is support for the conclusion. The legislator believes this opportunity is the only ulterior motive for the gift, supporting the conclusion that accepting the gift would be unproblematic.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 141 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply