LSAT 107 – Section 1 – Question 01

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:24

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
PT107 S1 Q01
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
84%
165
B
0%
152
C
2%
157
D
8%
161
E
5%
159
129
143
156
+Medium 147.515 +SubsectionMedium

Politician: The funding for the new nationwide health-awareness campaign should come from an increase in taxes on cigarettes. It is well established that cigarette smoking causes many serious health problems, and it is only reasonable that people whose unhealthful habits cause so many health problems should bear the costs of that campaign.

Smoker: But it is equally well established that regularly eating high-fat, high-cholesterol foods causes as many serious health problems as does smoking, yet it would be manifestly unreasonable to force those who purchase such foods to bear the burden of financing this campaign.

Speaker 1 Summary
The politician argues that a new health-awareness campaign should be funded by taxing cigarettes. As support, the politician says that smoking causes many health problems, and that it is reasonable to cover the campaign’s cost by taxing people whose habits cause health problems. Thus, it is reasonable to tax smokers.

Speaker 2 Summary
The smoker supports the unstated conclusion that it is not reasonable for smokers to bear the costs of this campaign. The smoker uses an analogy as support: consuming high-fat, high-cholesterol foods causes comparable health issues to smoking, but it is unreasonable to charge those consumers for the campaign’s costs. This implies that it is also unreasonable to charge smokers.

Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree on whether or not funding the campaign by taxing smokers is reasonable.

A
whether the politician’s proposal for financing the health-awareness campaign is an unreasonable one
The politician agrees with this point but the smoker disagrees, making it the point at issue. The politician argues that the proposal to tax smokers is reasonable, while the smoker’s argument supports the implicit conclusion that taxing smokers is unreasonable.
B
whether smokers are more aware of the harmful effects of their habit than are people who regularly eat high-fat, high-cholesterol foods
Neither speaker discusses people’s awareness of the health impacts of either of these habits. The focus is on the effects of these habits, not people’s perception of those effects.
C
whether the effects of smoking constitute a greater health hazard than do the effects of regularly eating high-fat, high-cholesterol foods
The smoker disagrees with this, instead claiming that the two habits cause roughly equal health problems. On the other hand, the politician never offers an opinion about the health impacts of eating certain foods. We can’t know if the speakers disagree about this.
D
whether it is unreasonable to require people who do not benefit from certain governmental programs to share the costs of those programs
Neither speaker brings up who benefits from governmental programs, nor does either one suggest distributing the costs based on who benefits.
E
whether the proposed increase on cigarette taxes is an efficient means of financing the health-awareness campaign
Neither speaker actually indicates how efficient the increased cigarette tax would be as a method of funding the campaign. Each speaker is just focused on whether the proposal is reasonable or not.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

Leave a Reply