PT57.S2.Q25 - The law of the city of Weston

btate87

EDIT: It's PT 57, not PT 58

The conditional logic here is really bugging me. It seems, with the benefit of knowing the answer, that the beginning of the stimulus ("The law") implies a bi-conditional? That is the only way I can see how C is a MBT answer choice. I ended up with the correct answer just because all of the other answers make no sense, but I'm hoping someone can help me pin down where I'm still going wrong on really understanding the structure of this one - even if it is a bi-conditional, it's not perfectly clear to me why (especially with the wording in the conclusion).

Here is how the argument still reads to me

-If $100+ & nonresident & /former resident, then register with the CC
-All contributions were from residents and former residents, therefore the campaign complied with THIS law
*MBT Answer: No contributions needed to be registered

It seems that the MBT answer should have specified, "No contributions needed to be registered as a result of THIS law," at the very least due to the wording in the conclusion. Had the conclusion said "the law," it would have more clearly been intending a bi-conditional relationship, though it still could be a referential phrase referring to the specific law in question. "This law," obscures whether or not there may be other laws to consider. In that case, concluding that nothing needed to be registered is too strong of an answer choice. My thoughts after reading the stimulus were some loose version of, "We still don't know if anything had to be registered because we only know this law doesn't necessitate registering those contributions."

Any help is greatly appreciated

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-25/

Leah M B

So since you have the Starter course, I'm guessing you aren't able to see JY's explanation on this. He actually addresses that this is a poorly written question.

To sum up, the way it's worded, it looks like we are supposed to assume that the law described in this question is the only law about registering contributions. It seems like they are saying in the city of Weston, the law regarding contributions is what they spell out. As in, that's the only law about mayoral campaign contributions. And if we accept that as fact, then the answer choice is indeed a MBT. Basically, it doesn't say "a law" about contributions, but "the law", meaning that is the entirety of law about this subject.

It's spelling out that the only contributions that need to be registered are those from non-residents who are not former residents, and contribute over $100.

What we know is that Brimley's campaign only received money from residents and former residents. Therefore, Brimley didn't accept any money from anyone that would need to register the donation. The only category of people that need to register contributions are nonresidents, who have never lived in Weston (and contribute over $100). None of Brimley's accepted donations fit in that category. Therefore, C.

btate87

Thanks so much! I made it all the way until the last 3 weeks before only having the starter pack kicked me in the butt! As always, it's good to know JY has echoed frustration with a question haha

lsat4life

Why is this a poorly written question in JY's opinion? (I can't see the explanation.) Is there some dispute about "the law of Weston regarding contributions" not actually implying that there is no other law regarding contributions? As far as I know, the article "the" does indicate that there is no other item fitting the description to which the word applies. "The president of the organization..." = only 1 president. "The banana on my kitchen table..." = only 1 banana on my kitchen table.

btate87

I can't see his explanation either, but the shift from "the" to "this" seems to weaken the sense of bi-conditionality. By not sticking with "the" it reads to me as though it is opening up the application of laws from outside Weston. It's been a few weeks, but I searched through a few different forums after posting this and that seemed to be the prevailing issue (at least the bi-conditionality part).

lsat4life

@btate87 said:
I can't see his explanation either, but the shift from "the" to "this" seems to weaken the sense of bi-conditionality. By not sticking with "the" it reads to me as though it is opening up the application of laws from outside Weston. It's been a few weeks, but I searched through a few different forums after posting this and that seemed to be the prevailing issue (at least the bi-conditionality part).

Interesting. I don't know if the use of "this" actually affects the interpretation, though. Consider the following:

"The banana on my table is ripe and delicious. This banana will be my breakfast."

The use of the word "this" seems to be a reference to the thing we were talking about in the previous sentence. Similarly, the use of the word "this" in the Weston problem is referring to "the law", which still remains as "the law of the City of Weston", no? Whether there are other laws outside Weston is not introduced by the use of the word "this" - if that issue is a problem then it would be one even if the use of "this" were changed to "the".

btate87

Completely agree. I spent enough time with it the day I can definitely see what the writers intended.

Trying to highlight where the confusion happened on my part (which seems to be fairly widespread) rests on a train of thought that could be sparked by that shift in wording. In trying to anticipate an answer choice, the possibility of other laws comes to mind. Just to try to inhabit that headspace, imagine this were a Flaw rather than a MBT and the conclusion was "Brimley did not have to report any contributions." A likely anticipation to come to mind would be, "But do laws outside of Weston have any effect on what he has to report?"

Of course that's not what the question is, just trying to explain the train of thought. Excellent explanation on your part that will surely be helpful to the next person struggling with this one : )

lsat4life

Noted, that does seem like a reasonable way to attack the argument. However, I think one thing much discussion overlooks is that the correct answer is about how no contribution needed to be registered with the city council. That part often gets chopped off in our analysis, in which case the truncated statement in (C) would very reasonably raise the issue of state or federal laws perhaps adding additional reporting requirements. But if (C) is limited to registration with the city council, I think it is a lot less vulnerable to these types of objections. Granted, theoretically a law outside of Weston might compel registration with Weston's city council, but I don't know if that is a reasonable way to look at this situation.