PrepTest 157

[lcid:3725] Prep Test 157 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Politician: Our public libraries Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

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

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always an argument, so identify the conclusion and premises Identify gap between premises and conclusion Anticipate, and diagram, the principle that will strengthen the argument Should resemble: "Premise → Conclusion" or "NOT Conclusion → NOT Premise"

Answer Anticipation

The phrase "following principles" in the question stem tells us this is the Strengthen variety of a Principle question. On these questions, we'll need to look for an answer choice that provides a principle, or rule, that connects the argument's premises to its conclusion. To do that, we usually just have to identify the premises and conclusion and then anticipate a principle that looks like "Premises → Conclusion." The politician's premise and premise/conclusion concern how most taxpayers and their families don't have many opportunities to use public libraries, given the public libraries' limited hours. The politician's main conclusion is a bit complicated, but we can translate it into a simplified if-then statement. We can notice that the "if-denying" keyword "unless" in the conclusion. One easy way to diagram statements with an "if-denying" keyword is to replace the keyword with "if not." Once we do that, the politician's conclusion becomes, "If library hours are not changed, then we shouldn't approve new taxes supporting public libraries." The "if" part of this statement can be treated like a premise. The library's hours don't allow most taxpayers or their families to use the library, and those hours will not change. So, a principle that looks like "Premises → Conclusion" will connect the politician's premise (and premise/conclusion) that most taxpayers and their families don't have many opportunities to use public libraries to the conclusion that we shouldn't approve new taxes supporting public libraries. The correct answer could look like, "Most taxpayers and their families have limited opportunities to use a resource → Should not approve new taxes supporting that resource" (e.g., "If most taxpayers and their families have limited opportunities to use a resource, then the government should not approve new taxes that support that resource").

Answer choices

  1. A
    Libraries and other public Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    This principle doesn't quite resemble "Premises → Conclusion." While it's reasonable to say that public libraries "serve an educational" purpose, that's not what the politician's premise says. Further, the politician's conclusion doesn't assert that public libraries should be made more convenient for taxpayers and their families. The politician concludes that the government shouldn't approve new taxes to support public libraries. So, this principle doesn't bridge the gap between the politician's premises and conclusion.

  2. B
    If use of a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." In fact, the "then" part of this principle says that we should support new taxes for a public facility. To justify the politician's argument, a principle would need to feature a "then" condition that says we should not support new taxes for a public facility, as the politician concludes that the government should not approve new taxes to support public libraries. (A principle with an "if" condition that says we should support new taxes for a public facility would also work, as we could take the flipside.) The inverse of this principle would strengthen the politician's argument ("If the use of a public facility is not made more convenient for taxpayers and their families, then new taxes supporting that facility should not be approved"). However, this answer choice, as it is currently written, does not support the politician's argument.

  3. C
    Taxpayers who have plenty Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." In fact, the "then" part of this principle says that we should pay new taxes for a public facility. To justify the politician's argument, a principle would need to feature a "then" condition that says we should not support new taxes for a public facility, as the politician concludes that the government should not support new taxes to support public libraries. (A principle with an "if" condition that says we should support new taxes for a public facility would also work, as we could take the flipside.) So, this principle's "then" condition is positive when it should be negative. It also is about paying new taxes, not supporting new taxes. Therefore, this principle does not strengthen the politician's argument.

  4. D
    The best way to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." This principle focuses on the best way to increase how many people use public libraries. That wasn't the politician's focus. Instead, the politician's conclusion asserted that the government should not approve new taxes for public libraries. So, this principle will not bridge the gap between the politician's premises and conclusion.

  5. E
    A new tax supporting Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    Finally, a principle that resembles "Premises → Conclusion." To diagram this principle, we'll use the "then" keyword "only." That will give us, "Should approve new taxes supporting public facility → Most taxpayers have an opportunity to use the facility." Let's take the flipside of this principle. We'll get, "Most taxpayers do NOT have an opportunity to use the facility → Should NOT approve new taxes supporting public facility" (e.g., "If most taxpayers do not have ample opportunities to use a public facility, then we should not approve new taxes that support that facility"). This closely resembles our anticipation: "Most taxpayers and their families have limited opportunities to use a resource → Should not approve new taxes supporting that resource" (e.g., "If most taxpayers and their families have limited opportunities to use a resource, then the government should not approve new taxes that support that resource"). This principle will bridge the gap between the politician's premise and conclusion. It connects the politician's premise — which asserts that the libraries' hours do not give most taxpayers and their families many opportunities to use the libraries — to their conclusion — which asserts that the government should not approve new taxes supporting public libraries. Therefore, we can confidently select (E).

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion