LSAT 151 – Section 2 – Question 25

LSAT 151 - Section 2 - Question 25

September 2018

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
PT151 S2 Q25	+LR	Argument part +AP Causal Reasoning +CausR Rule-Application +RuleApp Analogy +An	A 1% 152 B 4% 154 C 14% 156 D 77% 163 E 4% 154	142 151 159	+Medium	147.144 +SubsectionMedium

Mayor: Periodically an ice cream company will hold a free ice cream day as a promotion. Showing up may not cost you any money, but it sure does cost you time. We learn from this that when something valuable costs no money you get overconsumption and long lines. Currently, those who drive to work complain about the congestion they face in their rush-hour commutes. What is needed is a system for charging people for the use of roads during rush hour. Then rush hour congestion will abate.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation

We need a system that charges people for using the roads during rush hour traffic. Why? Because when something valuable is free, overconsumption and long lines are the result. Just as showing up for free ice cream costs time, congestion during rush hour traffic costs time.

Identify Argument Part

The claim is a general statement used as support for the Mayor’s main conclusion.

It is a hypothesis that is rejected in favor of the hypothesis stated in the argument’s overall conclusion.

The claim is not rejected in the Mayor’s argument.

It is a concession made to those who dispute an analogy drawn in the argument.

The analogy between ice cream and traffic is not being disputed.

It helps establish the importance of the argument’s overall conclusion, but is not offered as evidence for that conclusion.

The claim does not establish the importance of the Mayor’s main conclusion.

It is a general claim used in support of the argument’s overall conclusion.

The claim does support the Mayor’s main conclusion.

It is the overall conclusion of the argument.

The claim is not the Mayor’s main conclusion.

LSAT PrepTest 151 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course