PrepTest 103

[lcid:3508] Prep Test 103 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Politician: A government that Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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

Argument or Facts

Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed/Flawed

Question Type

Methods of Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

P: A 100% income tax rate will stop all economic activity, so the lower the income tax rate, the most money raised. E: That means a 0% income tax rate would raise the most, so you’re wrong.

Answer Anticipation

Normally when dealing with a Methods of Reasoning question that deals with a rebuttal, we go through a process of analyzing how the second speaker feels about the conclusion and premises of the first argument. However, there are also some common methods of reasoning that we should always be looking out for, and if we notice one of those, we can skip over to looking for an answer reflecting it. Here, there is one of those common methods of reasoning! The Economist starts her premise by saying “[your conclusion] would mean that…” suggesting that she’s going to highlight an absurd outcome of that conclusion. That’s a common method of reasoning - the Reduction to the Absurd - so we should look for an answer reflecting that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    stating a general principle Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The Economist’s statement isn’t a general principle - it’s a specific application of the Politician’s general principle.
  2. B
    providing evidence that where Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The Economist doesn’t discuss any specific real locations where certain tax rates were adopted.
  3. C
    arguing that the principle Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    The Politician does derive a principle, and the Economist does apply it in a limiting case (0% tax rate) to show that it leads to an absurdly false conclusion (that 0% tax rate raising the most money). This answer is therefore correct.
  4. D
    undermining the credibility of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The Economist does point out an absurd conclusion that the Politician’s principle leads to, but that’s not the same as “openly questioning” his understanding, which would need to be a much more explicit challenge.
  5. E
    attacking the politician's argument Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    The premise here is that an income tax rate of 100% would lead to a cessation of economic activity. The Economist discusses the situation where taxation is at 0%. If we know anything about numbers, it’s that these aren’t the same situation, so the Economist can’t be attacking the Politician’s premise.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion