LSAT 131 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q23

LR Question 23 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: This year a flood devastated a small river town

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Conform

FACTS: Hollyville, in the past, sent little aid after an earthquake occurred elsewhere.

Hollyville this year sent much aid to a fellow river town.

Hollyville last year received aid after a tornado.

ANALYSIS: I can think of two possible scenarios to extract:

Towns are more likely to help towns that face problems they might face. (i.e. river flooding)

Towns are more likely to give disaster aid after they have received disaster aid.

___________

1. The stimulus doesn’t mention whether people in Hollyville knew people in the other river town.
2. The stimulus doesn’t mention government relief programs.
3. This isn’t supported. It’s possible that Hollyville would have given even less after the earthquake if it hadn’t been popularized.
4. CORRECT. This is consistent with the stimulus. Hollyville gave little, but then got disaster aid and gave more after that.
5. This is a trap answer. I even prephrased something similar to this. But note that my prephrase above isn’t the same. We have no evidence that Hollyville has flooded. So this answer isn’t supported.
   (Anywhere with a river can flood, which is why I phrased my prephrase the way I did.)