Logical reasoning PrepTest 153 · Section 2 · Question 12

Incorrect. Both speakers seem to agree on this. They both mention shortfalls, and neither argues that such shortfalls don't exist.

Incorrect. Amal might believe this, since Amal thinks adding new money to the transportation budget will result in moving other money out of that budget. But Regina doesn't appear to have an opinion on how much money transportation should get.

Incorrect. They seem to be arguing about the likely outcome, not about how the money ought to be allocated. They might both agree with this or both disagree. We don't know.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
There's some new toll bridge leasing revenue in town. Always everyone's favorite type of hot goss! Regina points out this cash will go to the transportation budget, so it can't reduce shortfalls in other budget areas.

Amal disagrees. Allocating this money to transportation will free up other money that was previously going to transportation. So, the toll leases will be helping to cover budget shortfalls outside transportation, after all.

Strategy Overview:
Find both speakers' conclusions and determine if they disagree. If not, move on to the manner in which each speaker supports their conclusions. Finally, to find the correct answer choice, select the answer that is a Must Be True for one speaker and Must Be False for the other. Remember, answers on which one speaker doesn't have a clear opinion are common traps.

Answer Anticipation:
Regina and Amal seem to be stuck on this "budget shortfalls outside transportation issue." Will the toll bridge lease funds help cover those shortfalls, or not? Regina says no, and Amal says yes. Amal's argument is based on an interesting assumption: that once the new revenue comes in, other funds currently allocated to transportation will be "freed up," in other words, potentially allocated elsewhere. Regina doesn't seem to believe that's the case, since she says the new money coming in won't help cover shortfalls in any other areas besides transportation.

Answer Explanation:
While this is written in a needlessly complex way (typical LSAT), nonetheless it accurately expresses a point of disagreement. Amal thinks when the new leasing money comes into the transportation fund, a corresponding amount of old transportation money will go somewhere else. Regina doesn't think any area other than transportation will benefit from the leasing program. So, they disagree on whether or not existing funds will be reassigned.

Key Takeaway:
Sometimes the correct answer is written in complicated language, while other answers are written more simply. This is just a dirty LSAT trick to get you, the tired test-taker, to steer away from doing the hard cognitive work of parsing it. Your workaround: if you get stuck on complicated language while looking for right answers, do a pass looking for wrong answers instead. As in this case, process of elimination is slower (and thus shouldn't be your first go-to) but if you can eliminate all the wrong, simple answers, you'll feel better about choosing the correct, complex one, even if the writing style gives you a headache.

Incorrect. Both speakers seem to agree on this, provided that "transportation" is a part of the government where Regina and Amal live.