Stimulus: There are abandoned and vandalized houses on Carlton Street and they pose a threat to the neighborhood. Both groups at the meeting agree that tearing down the houses eliminated the threat. However, one group says that there was no need to demolish the buildings because the city can help fund and rehabilitate the buildings. The author concludes that since there was overwhelming success in the demolition strategy, that the ones that favored demolition were right and the group favoring rehabilitation was wrong.
Explanation: The houses could have been rehabilitated before being destroyed! Destroying the houses removes the possibility of rehabilitation, so it is not fair to say that the group favoring rehabilitation was wrong when rehabilitation wasn't tested and is not possible to be tested anymore.
A: This AC is tricky to parse through, but it actually does nothing at all to help. It's basically saying, "we should take the course of action that results in the most housing for people unless there is a threat to safety." In the stimulus, it is stated that there is a threat to safety, so all this AC is saying is that it is okay to not take the approach that results in the most housing for people. Does this establish that demolishing was then the right decision? Or that the proposal by rehabilitation advocates should have been adopted? Definitely not.
B. This AC is correct for the reason that I talked about above. Basically, if there are two proposals, and one can limit the possibility of doing the other, than the one that does not limit the possibility should be the one adopted. This is a very strong argument to adopt the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition.
C. Only one of the proposals was about renovating, and we don't know about the funding for both proposals. This AC is way off.
D. Just because demolition is bad doesn't mean that rehabilitation is the right decision. We need to prove that one of the proposals should be adopted over the other, and this AC does not do that.
E. Okay, so demolishing shouldn't be adopted... but why should we adopt rehabilitation?
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
1 comments
Stimulus: There are abandoned and vandalized houses on Carlton Street and they pose a threat to the neighborhood. Both groups at the meeting agree that tearing down the houses eliminated the threat. However, one group says that there was no need to demolish the buildings because the city can help fund and rehabilitate the buildings. The author concludes that since there was overwhelming success in the demolition strategy, that the ones that favored demolition were right and the group favoring rehabilitation was wrong.
Explanation: The houses could have been rehabilitated before being destroyed! Destroying the houses removes the possibility of rehabilitation, so it is not fair to say that the group favoring rehabilitation was wrong when rehabilitation wasn't tested and is not possible to be tested anymore.
A: This AC is tricky to parse through, but it actually does nothing at all to help. It's basically saying, "we should take the course of action that results in the most housing for people unless there is a threat to safety." In the stimulus, it is stated that there is a threat to safety, so all this AC is saying is that it is okay to not take the approach that results in the most housing for people. Does this establish that demolishing was then the right decision? Or that the proposal by rehabilitation advocates should have been adopted? Definitely not.
B. This AC is correct for the reason that I talked about above. Basically, if there are two proposals, and one can limit the possibility of doing the other, than the one that does not limit the possibility should be the one adopted. This is a very strong argument to adopt the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition.
C. Only one of the proposals was about renovating, and we don't know about the funding for both proposals. This AC is way off.
D. Just because demolition is bad doesn't mean that rehabilitation is the right decision. We need to prove that one of the proposals should be adopted over the other, and this AC does not do that.
E. Okay, so demolishing shouldn't be adopted... but why should we adopt rehabilitation?