Sections 4

LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 23

October 24, 2015

LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 23

October 24, 2015

Party spokesperson: The opposition party’s proposal to stimulate economic activity in the province by refunding $600 million in provincial taxes to taxpayers, who could be expected to spend the money, envisions an illusory benefit. Since the province’s budget is required to be in balance, either new taxes would be needed to make up the shortfall, in which case the purpose of the refund would be defeated, or else workers for the province would be dismissed. So either the province’s taxpayers or its workers, who are also residents of the province, will have the $600 million to spend, but there can be no resulting net increase in spending to stimulate the province’s economy.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The spokesperson concludes the opposition party’s plan to stimulate the economy envisions an illusory benefit. As evidence, the spokesperson states the province’s budget is required to be in balance. Either new taxes need to make up for the shortfall, or workers for the province will be dismissed. As a result, there will be no net increase in spending to stimulate the economy.

Describe Method of Reasoning

The spokesperson counters the position held by the opposing party. He does this by pointing out that an anticipated advantage of the opposing party’s plan would be offset by a disadvantage. Even if the province’s taxpayers are refunded $600 million, the need for a new tax to make up for the shortfall or the need to dismiss workers will negate the positive effects of the refunds.

A

reinterpreting a term that is central to an opposing argument

The spokesperson does not reinterpret any term.

B

arguing that a predicted advantage would be offset by an accompanying disadvantage

The predicted advantage is the advantage of the province’s taxpayers having $600 million to spend. The accompanying disadvantage is the need to either have a new tax make up for the shortfall or dismiss workers for the province.

C

casting doubt on the motives of opponents

The spokesperson does not address the motivations of the opposing party. The spokesperson addresses the opposing party’s claim directly.

D

drawing a distinction between different kinds of economic activity

The spokesperson does not address different kinds of economic activity.

E

seeking to show that the assumption that taxpayers would spend money that might be refunded to them is dubious

The spokesperson does not argue that the province’s taxpayers would not spend the money. In fact, the spokesperson concedes that taxpayers would have $600 million to spend.

3 comments

LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 22

October 24, 2015

43 comments

LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 22

October 24, 2015

48 comments

LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 17

October 24, 2015

15 comments

LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 17

October 24, 2015

Council member: The preservation of individual property rights is of the utmost importance to the city council. Yet, in this city, property owners are restricted to little more than cutting grass and weeding. Anything more extensive, such as remodeling, is prohibited by our zoning laws.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why does the city council prohibit all but the simplest home modifications when it believes so strongly in individual property rights?

Objective

A hypothesis resolving this inconsistency must present evidence that zoning laws somehow protect property rights. This protection must, in the city council's view, outweigh the potential infringement caused by the restrictions on home improvements.

A

Property owners are sometimes allowed exemptions from restrictive zoning laws.

This does not explain why the city council enforces zoning laws in the first place. It does not address how those zoning laws are compatible with the council's emphasis on individual property rights.

B

It is in the best interest of property owners to maintain current laws in order to prevent an increase in their property taxes.

This does not explain the city council's support for zoning laws. The council member states that individual property rights, not the financial interests of property owners, are its priority.

C

The city council places less importance on property rights than do property owners.

This does not explain why the city council would support zoning laws that restrict property rights. The council places “the utmost importance” on property rights, and thus should act to support those rights, regardless of the beliefs of property owners.

D

An individual’s property rights may be infringed upon by other people altering their own property.

This reconciles the city council’s support for property rights and its enforcement of zoning laws. Zoning laws protect individual property rights by preventing neighbors from infringing upon them indirectly.

E

Zoning laws ensure that property rights are not overly extensive.

This deepens the inconsistency. The city council claims to prioritize property rights, so it should not support zoning laws that limit those rights.

21 comments

LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 16

October 24, 2015

21 comments

LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 16

October 24, 2015

22 comments

LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 15

October 24, 2015

34 comments

LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 15

October 24, 2015

In 1992, there were over 250 rescues of mountain climbers, costing the government almost 3 million dollars. More than 25 people died in climbing mishaps that year. Many new climbers enter the sport each year. Members of a task force have proposed a bonding arrangement requiring all climbers to post a large sum of money to be forfeited to the government in case of calamity.

Summarize Argument

The task force recommends an arrangement where climbers forfeit money to the government if they need rescuing. Why? Because mountain climbing is dangerous, and rescuing mountain climbers cost the government almost 3 million dollars in one year.

Notable Assumptions

The task force assumes the proposed agreement will either create an incentive strong enough to reduce the number of mountain climbers, thus reducing the number who die or need rescuing, or raise enough money to pay for those rescues. They assume it should be the responsibility of a mountain climber to pay for their own rescue, rather than the government.

A

Taxpayers should not subsidize a freely chosen hobby and athletic endeavor of individuals.

This principle supports the proposal, which would shift the financial burden of mountain climbing rescues from taxpayers to the climbers.

B

The government is obliged to take measures to deter people from risking their lives.

This principle supports the proposal, which creates a strong financial incentive against dangerous climbing by making climbers pay for their own evacuations.

C

For physically risky sports the government should issue permits only to people who have had at least minimal training in the sport.

This principle doesn’t apply. There’s no indication the proposal in question is available only to those with some training in mountain climbing.

D

Citizens who use publicly subsidized rescue services should be required to pay more toward the cost of these services than citizens who do not.

This principle supports the proposal, which would make mountain climbers who use public rescue services pay more for those services than people who don’t.

E

People who engage in physically risky behavior that is not essential to anyone’s welfare should be held responsible for the cost of treating any resulting injuries.

This principle supports the proposal, which would make risk-taking mountain climbers who suffer “calamity” and need government help—such as rescuing and medical care—responsible for the cost of that help.

37 comments