Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 23
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 23
October 24, 2015
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.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 22
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 22
October 24, 2015
Summary
The author concludes that birds are not descendants of dinosaurs called dromeosaurs. Why? Because the earliest bird fossils that have been discovered date much further back in history than the oldest known dromeosaur fossils.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the fact the earlier bird fossils are older than the earlier dromeosaur fossils proves that birds originated before dromeosaurs did.
The author assumes that there do not exist undiscovered dromeosaur fossils that are older than the earliest bird fossils that have been discovered.
The author assumes that there do not exist undiscovered dromeosaur fossils that are older than the earliest bird fossils that have been discovered.
A
Having similar characteristics is not a sign that types of animals are evolutionarily related.
The author doesn’t deny the idea that there’s an evolutionary relationship between birds and dromeosaurs. For example, the author could believe that dromeosaurs evolved from birds, or that they each evolved from a common ancestor.
B
Dromeosaurs and birds could have common ancestors.
Not necessary, because the author might believe there are no common ancestors between birds and dromeosaurs. All that the author is committed to about the relationship between the two is that birds did not evolve from dromeosaurs.
C
Knowledge of dromeosaur fossils and the earliest bird fossils is complete.
Too extreme to be necessary. The author doesn’t have to assume that our knowledge of the fossils is “complete.” The author just needs to assume that our knowledge of the fossils tells us that birds originated before dromeosaurs. Whether we’re missing a tooth from a skeleton or whether we’re missing some more recent fossils doesn’t affect the reasoning.
D
Known fossils indicate the relative dates of origin of birds and dromeosaurs.
Necessary, because if known fossils do NOT indicate the relative dates of origin, then what we know about bird and dromeosaur fossils doesn’t support a conclusion that birds couldn’t have evolved from dromeosaurs. After all, dromeosaurs could have originated before birds, so birds still could have evolved from them.
E
Dromeosaurs are dissimilar to birds in many significant ways.
Not necessary, because the author could agree that dromeosaurs are actually very similar to birds. That similarity may be due to dromeosaurs evolving from birds, or they both evolved from a common ancestor, or to pure coincidence.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 17
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 17
October 24, 2015Council 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.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 16
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 16
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 15
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 15
October 24, 2015
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.