a) does nothing; if it did not have the “unless” and everything written after, it would have supported the opponents of demolition, but the “unless” statement makes it ambiguous.
b) forces us to determine that rehabilitation is the correct choice because one proposal (demolishing the houses) precludes the possibility of trying the other approach (rehabilitating the houses)
c) does nothing; we do not know if the government fundings are secure yet
d) does nothing; “thoroughly investigated” is too generic of a term. is the condition of “thoroughly investigated” met if you research the alternative, or is the condition of “thoroughly investigated” met only if you actually implement the alternative. if the latter is the case, then the opponents’ of demolition proposal would have been accepted; however, the term is ambiguous, so it does not help.
e) does nothing; if this is true, it still doesn’t help us decide if which plan we should pick
feel free to reach out if you have any more questions! hope this helps
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
3 comments
PT8 S1 Q20
this was my reasoning:
a) does nothing; if it did not have the “unless” and everything written after, it would have supported the opponents of demolition, but the “unless” statement makes it ambiguous.
b) forces us to determine that rehabilitation is the correct choice because one proposal (demolishing the houses) precludes the possibility of trying the other approach (rehabilitating the houses)
c) does nothing; we do not know if the government fundings are secure yet
d) does nothing; “thoroughly investigated” is too generic of a term. is the condition of “thoroughly investigated” met if you research the alternative, or is the condition of “thoroughly investigated” met only if you actually implement the alternative. if the latter is the case, then the opponents’ of demolition proposal would have been accepted; however, the term is ambiguous, so it does not help.
e) does nothing; if this is true, it still doesn’t help us decide if which plan we should pick
feel free to reach out if you have any more questions! hope this helps
Thought I edited the title, my bad. Question from PT 8 S1 Q 20
Which question?