PrepTest 146

[lcid:3681] Prep Test 146 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Astronomer: This country's space Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Principle Questions / Strengthen Questions

Answer choices

  1. A
    A government agency should Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't compare the cost of the telescope to the agency's overall budget—it compares only the amount already spent to the amount left to spend. This answer is out of scope.
  2. B
    If more than half Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem
    Correct. Argument or Facts:
    Argument

    Valid or Flawed:
    Flawed

    Question Type:
    Strengthen (Principle)

    Stimulus Summary:
    Cancelling the over-budget space telescope would waste the money already spent on it, which is more than the cost of what's left to build. Therefore, cancelling it is a mistake.

    Answer Anticipation:
    This argument falls into what would normally be called a sunk-cost fallacy—using the money already spent to justify continuing to spend money on something. Here, the amounts are compared, with the amount of money already spent being greater than the total remaining—in other words, the telescope is over halfway to completion. Since we're tasked with justifying an argument that commits a fallacy, we need an answer establishing a principle that works around that fallacy:

    If a project is already more than halfway funded, then the project shouldn't be cancelled.

    Answer Explanation:
    This answer almost exactly matches our anticipation. The argument bases its conclusion that a project shouldn't be canceled (i.e., it should be completed) on the amount of money already spent on it (totaling over 50% of the total budget). The principle in this answer choice justifies that argument.

    Key Takeaway:
    Be careful on a question where you're tasked with justifying an argument that commits a common flaw! It's easy to pick a trap answer that highlights that flaw (e.g., answer choice (D)) instead of justifying it.
  3. C
    If it becomes clear Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer establishes a principle that would justify canceling a project, not continuing it.
  4. D
    One should not commit Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer, similar to (C), justifies canceling a project, not continuing it. (This answer, by the way, is a description of the sunk cost fallacy, not an answer justifying considering sunk costs.)
  5. E
    In determining which scientific Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. There's no discussion of the potential discoveries from this telescope, so this answer is out of scope.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion