LSAT 149 - Section 1 - Question 04

March 7, 2018

15 comments

LSAT 83 - Section 1 - Question 03

March 7, 2018

5 comments

LSAT 149 - Section 1 - Question 03

March 7, 2018

Enrique: The city’s transit authority does not have enough money to operate for the next twelve months without cutting service or increasing fares, and the federal government has so far failed to provide additional funding. Nonetheless, the transit authority should continue operating without service cuts or fare increases until it has exhausted its funds. At that point, the federal government will be willing to provide funding to save the authority.

Cynthia: If the transit authority tries that maneuver, the federal government will probably just let the authority go out of business. The transit authority cannot risk allowing that to happen.

Speaker 1 Summary
Enrique argues that the city's transit authority should continue operating without cutting services or increasing fares until it runs out of money. He believes that once the authority's funds are exhausted, the federal government will step in and provide the funding to save the transit authority.

Speaker 2 Summary
Cynthia disagrees with Enrique's strategy. She believes that if the transit authority allows its funds to run out without making any cuts or increasing fares, the federal government will likely let it go out of business. Cynthia suggests that the transit authority cannot risk this outcome.

Objective
Disagreement: Enrique and Cynthia disagree on whether the transit authority should continue to run without making any cuts or increasing fares.

A
the transit authority should continue operating without cutting service or increasing fares until it has exhausted its funds
Enrique agrees because he believes that the government will provide more funding once they run out of money. Cynthia disagrees because she thinks the government will just let the transit authority go out of business.
B
the federal government should provide additional funding to the transit authority
It is unclear whether Enrique or Cnythia support/oppose the government providing additional funding. At best, Enrique agrees with this, but Cynthia does not mention this at all. Their disagreement is over what the transit authority should do without government funding.
C
it would be better for the transit authority to cut services than it would be to raise fares
Neither Enrique nor Cynthia addresses whether cutting services would be better than raising fares. Enrique believes the transit authority should do neither, while Cynthia does not provide a position.
D
the federal government is willing to provide additional funding to the transit authority now
Neither Enrique nor Sylvia addresses whether the government is willing to provide funding now. Enrique says that the government has “so far” been able to provide funding, while Cynthia says nothing about it.
E
the transit authority can afford to operate for the next twelve months without cutting service even if it does not receive additional funding
Enrique likely agrees with this statement. He claims the transit authority will run out of money if it doesn’t raise fares or cut services. So, if it raises fares (which is implied in this AC), it *could* survive. However, Cynthia does not address what will happen in this case.

6 comments

LSAT 83 - Section 1 - Question 02

March 7, 2018

17 comments

LSAT 149 - Section 1 - Question 02

March 7, 2018

Rose: Let’s not see the movie Winter Fields. I caught a review of it in the local paper and it was the worst review I’ve read in years.

Chester: I don’t understand why that might make you not want to see the movie. And besides, nothing in that paper is particularly well written.

Summary

Rose: The local paper had one of the worst reviews of Winter Fields I’ve ever read. Therefore, we should not see that movie.

Chester: Nothing in that paper is well written. I don’t understand why that would make you not want to see the movie.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Chester thought Rose was referring to the review itself being poorly written, whereas Rose meant that the review gave the movie a bad rating.

A
see the movie

This answer is unsupported. Chester did not misunderstand what Rose meant by “let’s not see the movie.”

B
caught a review

This answer is unsupported. Chester did not misunderstand what Rose meant by “caught a review.” Chester understands that Rose read a particular review.

C
local paper

This answer is unsupported. Chester did not misunderstand what Rose meant by seeing a review in the local paper.

D
worst review

This answer is strongly supported. Chester thought Rose was referring to the review itself being poorly written, whereas Rose meant that the review gave the movie a bad rating.

E
in years

This answer is unsupported. Chester did not misunderstand that the review Rose read was the worst she had read in years.


19 comments

LSAT 83 - Section 1 - Question 01

March 7, 2018

9 comments

LSAT 149 - Section 1 - Question 01

March 7, 2018

The mayoral race in Bensburg is a choice between Chu, a prodevelopment candidate, and Lewis, who favors placing greater limits on development. Prodevelopment candidates have won in the last six mayoral elections. Thus, Chu will probably defeat Lewis.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Chu will probably defeat Lewis in the mayoral race. This is based on the fact that prodevelopment candidates have won the last six mayoral elections, and Chu, unlike Lewis, is a prodevelopment candidate.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the reasons that led to prodevelopment candidates winning in the past continue to apply to the race between Chu and Lewis. The author assumes that people won’t choose to support anti-development candidates in the upcoming election.

A
Lewis has extensive experience in national politics, but not in city politics.
This is a negative aspect of Lewis. This doesn’t help suggest that he will probably win over Chu.
B
Prodevelopment mayoral candidates in Bensburg generally attract more financial backing for their campaigns.
This might help explain why prodevelopment candidates have won. But this doesn’t suggest that the same reason won’t apply to this race.
C
Bensburg is facing serious new problems that most voters attribute to overdevelopment.
This suggests that voters might not be as attracted to prodevelopment candidates during this election as they had been during past election.
D
Lewis once worked as an aide to a prodevelopment mayor of Bensburg.
The premises tell us that Lewis favors placing limits on development. His past experience doesn’t change the fact that he is not a prodevelopment candidate.
E
Chu was not thought of as a prodevelopment politician before this election.
Regardless of what people knew of him before, the premises tell us that Chu is a prodevelopment candidate. (E) isn’t suggesting that voters don’t know Chu is prodevelopment.

9 comments

LSAT 83 - Section 1 - Question 22

March 6, 2018

37 comments

LSAT 149 - Section 1 - Question 22

March 6, 2018

48 comments

LSAT 83 - Section 1 - Question 19

March 6, 2018

28 comments

«‹206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226›»