LSAT 2 – Section 4 – Question 04
LSAT 2 - Section 4 - Question 04
October 1991You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 1:15
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT2 S4 Q04 |
+LR
| Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw | A
80%
161
B
2%
156
C
8%
153
D
4%
157
E
6%
153
|
121 137 153 |
+Easier | 145.613 +SubsectionMedium |
This is a flaw question, and we know that because of the question stem: As a rebuttal of Giselle’s argument, Antoine’s response is ineffective because…
Giselle’s conclusion is that the government should raise sales tax on gas. Why? Well, because the government needs to make sure that the public consumes less petrol and when things cost more, people buy less of it.
Antoine’s conclusion is that the government should not raise the tax on gas because it’s not fair to gas users. Instead, if gas prices are to be increased, it should be in such a way that it’s a burden to everyone - not just the gas users.
Giselle’s argument is definitely weak - there is no firm evidence that taxes on gas should be increased. There are plenty of other ways to make people stop using gas, including giving people incentives or just restricting the supply of gas (which will inflate the price of gas itself, making the gas extremely expensive). However, Antoine’s government doesn’t effectively address Giselle’s argument as much as it disagrees with her conclusion and fails to address the validity of her conclusion. In addition, he talks about increasing the government’s revenue; that’s not what Giselle’s argument is about. Her argument surrounds cutting gas consumption, not about getting the government more money.
Correct Answer Choice (A) works because it’s descriptively accurate and it points out where Antoine fails to address Giselle’s argument - on the LSAT, disagreeing with someone’s conclusion involves demonstrating that their premised doesn’t allow for their conclusion to be made. Antoine fails to do this.
Answer Choice (B) is descriptively accurate but it’s not a flaw. He’s talking about being fair to users of gasoline; we don’t need to know the number of taxpayers that are not gasoline users.
Answer Choice (C) is descriptively accurate, but it’s now a flaw. While fairness is subjective, he does support his argument by explaining for it’s unfair.
Answer Choice (D) is descriptively inaccurate. Giselle says that the government should increase taxes on gas - it’s okay for Antoine to assume this.
Answer Choice (E) is descriptively inaccurate. He is not making the assumption that the government’s revenues should/can be increased in other ways. He’s argument that, if these taxes are increased, it should raise the government’s revenue in a way that doesn’t burden just the group of users.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 2 Explanations
Section 1 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 2 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.