PrepTest 152

Incorrect. The specific penalties enacted don't matter to the argument—this argument could work even if there were only generic statements about the penalties (e.g., "The penalties enacted this time are less serious than previous attempts.").

Incorrect. The argument is about curbing—i.e., lessening—on-campus drinking, which could still be accomplished even if many students didn't drink on-campus. Additionally, if anything, there not being a problem to solve would align with an argument that attempts to solve that problem won't be effective.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't assume that students prefer to drink on campus, just that some do drink on campus and that this can be discouraged.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Because previous attempts to curb on-campus drinking haven't worked, the recent attempt will also not work.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument relies on past events to draw a conclusion about present events/future outcomes. As with all arguments that draw conclusions based on past instances, there's always the chance that this time will be different!

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the penalties this time around might be different in a way that results in a different outcome. In doing so, it points out the past vs. present/future flaw present in the stimulus, so this is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
Any time the LSAT starts talking about what has happened in the past, it's time to start thinking past vs. future flaw. It's always possible that this time will be different!

Incorrect. The conclusion is limited to whether the new penalties will be effective at curbing on-campus drinking, so other positive consequences are out of scope.