PrepTest 107
[lcid:3527] Prep Test 107 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
Economist: To the extent
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: A
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Argument or Facts
Argument
Valid or Flawed
Flawed
Question Type
Argument Structure Questions
Stimulus Summary
We shouldn’t consider profit motive a problem with homelessness, as far as availability is concerned, because investors like money.
Answer Anticipation
As we’re reading through an Argument Structure question, we should be even more focused on defining the role of each statement.
Here, the statement in question is the first half of the first sentence. Since that sentence is a “should” sentence, there’s a good chance that it’s the main point of the argument. And an introductory clause to a conclusion that talks about the conditions under which it applies (“To the extent”) makes this a conditional or qualified conclusion.
From there, the argument goes on to suggest why profit motive isn’t at fault. None of the following statements have language suggesting that they’re conclusions - instead, they talk about why profitability isn’t an issue in providing housing, to an extent.
So the statement in question is one that qualifies the conclusion as only applying to a discussion of homelessness due to a lack of available housing. Let’s find an answer reflecting that.
Answer choices
-
AIt limits the application Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A matches the stem
The Economist is discussing homelessness, but only “to the extent” that it’s because of a lack of available housing. Homelessness that’s the result of other causes is explicitly out of scope of the argument she’s making. This qualification on the conclusion is reflected in this answer, making it correct. -
BIt suggests that the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
There’s no language here suggesting the Economist views a lack of available housing as the primary cause of homelessness, just one contributing factor that her argument is limited to discussing. -
CIt is offered as Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
It’s a part of the conclusion - one which qualifies the scope of it. -
DIt expresses the conclusion Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Close! However, it’s the second half of this sentence that serves as the content of the conclusion that’s being supported. This opening clause only limits the scope of it. -
EIt suggests a possible Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
If anything, it suggests a possible cause of homelessness - lack of available housing.
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.