Logical reasoning PrepTest 147 · Section 1 · Question 17

Incorrect. There's no debate over whether the new signs are more readable—just whether it's necessary to make them so, considering the cost. An answer to this question wouldn't let us know if it's a waste of time and money, so we can eliminate it.

Incorrect. The cost to purchase would be more relevant than the cost to manufacture. Even with the cost to purchase, however, buying them costs more than not buying them and keeping the current ones, so at best this answer would let us know how much of a waste the update is, not whether it's a waste in the first place.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Evaluation

Stimulus Summary:
Background Ð The city is replacing street signs with ones that have improved readability over the next 10 years
Premise Ð No one is complaining about the current signs
Conclusion Ð It's a waste of time/money

Answer Anticipation:
This argument doesn't have a lot going on with it. A Politician notes a change that's happening, but concludes that it's a waste of time and money. She contends that because no one is complaining about the current signs.

Complaints about the signs are only one reason to update them, however, and so any answer that asks about another potential reason will help in evaluating whether it truly is a waste to update them. That's a wide-open anticipation, so let's be flexible as we analyze the answers.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is subtle, but it does help to analyze the argument. If the city replaces every street sign within a 10 year period, then those street signs are getting replaced no matter how many complaints there are. If they're getting replaced as part of regular maintenance, then it isn't a waste of time and money to do so. If, however, they're generally replaced only every 50 years, then doing so off schedule to increase readability—when no one is complaining about that—would be a waste. This answer helps to analyze whether it's a waste to replace the street signs over the given timeline, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
We didn't note the timeline element of the stimulus—"Over the next decade"—despite that being a common element that questions on the LSAT deal with. And here, the correct answer ended up dealing with it. This would be a great question to review if you missed that, as well, to create a rule of thumb for yourself moving forward to always note language similar to the opening clause here!

Incorrect. It's possible that any city replacing their signs is wasting time and money, or that other cities do actually have a readability problem for their street signs, as witnessed by complaints from their residents. Since there are too many pieces of information we'd need to know on top of this to know the situation in the other cities is similar to the one here, this answer doesn't help us analyze the argument.

Incorrect. This answer might help analyze an argument about the new street signs actually improving readability, but it doesn't help us analyze whether it's worth it for this city to change to them.