LSAT 107 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Mayor of Outerville, a suburb of Center City…

QUESTION TYPE: Main Conclusion

CONCLUSION: Outerville should renovate its train station.

REASONING: People want to live where train travel is easy and pleasant. And we agree that Outerville should seek new residents.

ANALYSIS: On main conclusion questions, just read the argument and ask yourself: why is this guy telling me this?

The mayor’s main point is that Outerville should build a train station to attract new residents. People seem to want to live in suburbs with train stations.

___________

1. This is something everyone agrees on. The mayor’s argument is about the best way to find new residents (renovate the train station.)
2. CORRECT. Renovation will let the town attract new residents.
3. The mayor didn’t say where anyone should look for jobs. He just made a statement of fact: jobs in Center City are increasing, but people want to live in suburbs live Outerville.
4. The mayor didn’t say what people should do. He just made note of what people seem to prefer: trains.
5. The mayor isn’t telling people where they should live. He’s telling the people of Outerville that they might be able to convince more people to live in Outerville if Outerville had a better train station. This is because people want to live where train travel is convenient and pleasant.

Recap: The question begins with “Mayor of Outerville, a suburb of Center City”. It is a Identify The Conclusion question. Learn more about LSAT Identify questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.