PrepTest 127
[lcid:3605] Prep Test 127 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
Throughout a certain nation,
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: E
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Errors in Reasoning Questions
Answer choices
-
Atakes for granted that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. The argument isn't about an alternative plan that would have worked, just a judgment that the subsidies haven't, so this answer is out of scope. -
Btakes for granted that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. There's no indication in the stimulus that the subsidies were what drove the expanded access to electricity for urban residents. However, even if that were the case, the argument doesn't treat that as the rationale behind the conclusion—rather, it uses the rural residents without electricity to justify the conclusion. -
Cpresumes, without providing justification, Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. The argument concludes that the subsidy program is a failure because not all rural residents have electricity, so it makes no assumptions about non-rural members of the population. -
Doverlooks the possibility that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. The rationale behind the conclusion that the program is a failure is access for rural residents, so urban residents are out of scope. -
Efails to take into Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument
Valid or Flawed:
Flawed
Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning
Stimulus Summary:
Subsides in a nation are used to get rural residents electricity, but many still lack it, so the subsidy is a failure.
Answer Anticipation:
Something is a failure when it doesn't achieve its goal. Here, the stated goal of the subsidies was to "help residents of rural areas" get electricity. Even if some rural residents still don't have access to electricity, others could have been helped through the subsidy program. The argument treats it as an all-or-nothing type thing, whereas the program could still be a success even if it's not a complete one.
Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the program could be a success in meeting its goal of helping rural residents get electricity even if some rural residents still lack access.
Key Takeaway:While the conclusion here doesn't use traditional strength words like "definitely" or "all," it is fairly extreme in calling a program a "failure." When that happens, make sure that the premises justify that strength!
Additionally, when the LSAT sets out a goal or purpose, it's almost certainly going to play into the question. Pay attention to it and see how the results line up with the goal.
What this tests
Discussion
-
D 5 replies
Started by Raheel
-
Can this question be explained 1 reply
Started by alliehall21