LSAT 107 – Section 4 – Question 02

LSAT 107 - Section 4 - Question 02

October 1999

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

Target time: 1:01

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 S4 Q02
+LR
Argument part +AP
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
84%
166
B
7%
158
C
4%
156
D
5%
159
E
0%
157
138
147
157
 +Medium 141.321 +SubsectionEasier

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Economist: To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing, it should not be assumed that the profit motive is at fault. Private investors will, in general, provide housing if the market allows them to make a profit; it is unrealistic to expect investors to take risks with their property unless they get some benefit in return.

Summarize Argument
The economist argues that we should not assume that the profit motive is to blame for any homelessness that results from a lack of housing. (Homelessness resulting from other causes is not addressed in this argument.) The reason, the economist says, is that investors do actually build housing if they can profit from it. The conclusion is further supported by a claim that it’s unrealistic to ask investors to build housing in a poor market. This all suggests that market conditions may be the cause of insufficient housing, not the profit motive.

Identify Argument Part
The phrase “To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing” defines the scope of the argument: the economist is only discussing the portion of homelessness caused by lack of housing, not any remainder arising from other causes.

A
It limits the application of the argument to a part of the problem.
This is exactly what the phrase identified does. It tells us that the economist’s argument only focuses on some situations of homelessness, meaning that the argument needn’t address every single case—only those caused by a housing shortage.
B
It suggests that the primary cause of homelessness is lack of available housing.
The phrase identified never compares lack of available housing with any other causes of homelessness, nor does it say one is a greater cause than the other. In fact, nothing in the argument does this.
C
It is offered as evidence crucial to the conclusion.
The phrase identified doesn’t support the conclusion, just limits its scope. Just saying that some homelessness may arise from a lack of housing does not lead to the conclusion that the profit motive may not be to blame.
D
It expresses the conclusion to be argued for.
The argument is not designed to support the phrase identified. Nothing else the economist says implies that some homelessness is caused by housing shortage; instead, the argument supports a conclusion about the blameworthiness of the profit motive.
E
It suggests a possible solution to the problem of homelessness.
This is not something the argument does at all. The economist isn’t concerned with proposing solutions, and no part of the argument suggests how homelessness might be addressed.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 107 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply