LSAT 139 – Section 4 – Question 19

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 19

June 2013

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:25

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
PT139 S4 Q19
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Analogy +An
A
2%
155
B
2%
154
C
3%
157
D
45%
163
E
49%
166
150
165
180
 +Hardest 148.326 +SubsectionMedium

Video of JY doing this

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

Professor: Economists argue that buying lottery tickets is an unwise use of resources, because the average payoff for the tickets sold in a lottery is much lower than the cost of a ticket. But this reasoning is faulty. The average amount paid out on individual insurance policies is much lower than the average cost of a policy, yet nobody would argue that purchasing insurance is an unwise use of resources.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the fact the average payoff for a lottery ticket is much lower than the cost of a ticket does not prove that buying lottery tickets is unwise. The author supports this conclusion by comparing lottery tickets to insurance policies. The average amount paid on these policies is much lower than the average cost of a policy, but people don’t think buying insurance is unwise.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that buying an insurance policy is relevantly similar to buying a lottery ticket.

A
Individuals spend, on average, much more on insurance than on lottery tickets.
If anything, this answer helps defend the argument from the possibility that the amounts spent on lottery tickets might be so large as to involve far more risk than that involved with insurance policies. (A) says this isn’t true.
B
Insurance companies generally retain a higher proportion of total revenue than do organizations that sponsor lotteries.
The argument is about what is unwise for the purchaser. Whether the seller of lottery ticket benefits has no bearing on whether the purchaser is making a wise decision.
C
Taking small financial risks can often greatly increase one’s chances of obtaining much larger benefits.
This doesn’t undermine the author’s analogy. (C) simply describes the risk/reward aspect of a lottery ticket. But we’re interested in weakening the author’s analogy to insurance policies.
D
In general, the odds of winning the grand prize in a lottery are significantly lower than the odds of collecting a settlement from a typical insurance policy.
The comparative odds of winning a ticket vs. collecting on an insurance policy aren’t relevant, because we already know that the average payout on a lottery ticket and an insurance policy is lower than the average cost.
E
The protection against loss that insurance provides is more important to one’s well-being than is the possibility of a windfall gain.
This points out a difference that affects the analogy. If the benefit of insurance is more important than the benefit of a lottery ticket, then the fact people don’t think insurance is unwise may not be as relevant concerning an evaluation of whether lottery tickets are unwise.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 139 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply