PrepTest 151

Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to pick it by getting you to think that since they're already paying for it (through higher rent), then making them pay directly for it won't change things. However, if they pay directly for it, they can lower their bill—if it's included in rent, their rent doesn't go down if they use less. So this answer doesn't weaken the argument.

Incorrect. If anything, this suggests that people will try to use less energy to save money if they're directly responsible for their use.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Tenants with utilities included in rent don't have an incentive to use less electricity, so making them pay for it will conserve energy.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion establishes a goal—conserve energy. That's based on making a change—switching electricity payment from landlords to tenants. While the argument does establish that this switch will provide an incentive to tenants to use less electricity, it doesn't state that all other things will remain equal. To weaken this argument, we should look for an answer that raises something that could happen with this switch that would result in less conservation of energy. One key area? The landlord, who no longer has an incentive to conserve electricity—maybe they're doing something currently that they would no longer feel the need to do.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice raises a current incentive to lower electricity use on the part of the landlord—an incentive that goes away if the tenants are paying for rent. Since the change suggested to reach the goal of energy conservation would also remove an incentive for someone to conserve electricity, this answer calls into question whether the overall change in use would be a reduction, and so it weakens the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever a change is made in pursuit of a goal, there's always a chance of unexpected outcomes that will get in the way of reaching the goal. Whenever an LSAT question features a change, you should always start thinking of other potential changes not addressed in the argument.

Incorrect. The conclusion in the argument is conditioned on more landlords installing individual meters, not all of them doing so, so it doesn't weaken the argument if this is impossible in "[s]ome" buildings.

Incorrect. First, the argument concludes that one method of incentivizing people to conserve energy would work, so as long as it provides some people a reason to use less energy, it doesn't matter if other people have alternative incentives. Second, the change could help these people conserve energy since they're now seeing how much they're using.