LSAT 102 – Section 4 – Question 01

LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 01

June 1998

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:58

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
PT102 S4 Q01
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Net Effect +NetEff
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
88%
166
B
2%
160
C
8%
162
D
0%
155
E
1%
158
124
138
152
 +Easier 146.127 +SubsectionMedium

Taxpayer: For the last ten years, Metro City’s bridge-maintenance budget of $1 million annually has been a prime example of fiscal irresponsibility. In a well-run bridge program, the city would spend $15 million a year on maintenance, which would prevent severe deterioration, thus limiting capital expenses for needed bridge reconstruction to $10 million. However, as a result of its attempt to economize, the city is now faced with spending $400 million over two years on emergency reconstruction of its bridges.

Summarize Argument
The taxpayer argues that the city has been fiscally irresponsible in spending too little each year to maintain the city’s bridges. Proper maintenance would prevent severe deterioration, limiting reconstruction costs to $10 million. However, due to the city’s inadequate maintenance spending, the city must now pay $400 million to reconstruct the bridges.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the taxpayer’s opinion the city has been fiscally irresponsible by not spending enough to maintain its bridges to prevent costly deterioration.

A
should have budgeted substantially more money for maintenance of its bridges
This a good paraphrase of the conclusion. The taxpayer argues that the city was fiscally irresponsible by underfunding bridge maintenance, leading to high emergency repair costs. He contends that the city should have spent “substantially more”—$15 million—to reduce such costs.
B
would have had a well-run bridge program if it had spent more money for reconstruction of its bridges
The taxpayer argues that the city should have spent more on maintaining, not rebuilding, the bridges. Moreover, he contends the city was fiscally irresponsible by underfunding maintenance but does not claim that more spending on reconstruction would ensure fiscal responsibility.
C
is spending more than it needs to on maintenance of its bridges
The taxpayer argues the opposite of this claim. The taxpayer contends that the city is spending less than it needs to maintain its bridges. The city only pays $1 million for bridge maintenance, but the taxpayer argues that a “well-run” budget would spend $15 million yearly.
D
is economizing on its bridge program to save money in case of emergencies
The taxpayer does not discuss why the city is economizing. The taxpayer argues that the city’s economizing is ineffective and will ultimately cost more, but the taxpayer does not explain why the city chose to spend so little on bridge maintenance.
E
has bridges that are more expensive to maintain than they were to build
The taxpayer discusses reconstructing the city’s bridges—not building them. Moreover, the taxpayer contends that the city’s bridges are more expensive to rebuild than maintain: maintaining the bridges costs only $15 million annually, but reconstructing them costs $400 million.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply