LSAT 109 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Party spokesperson: The opposition party’s proposal to stimulate…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken

CONCLUSION: The tax rebate won’t bring any benefit.

REASONING: Taxpayers could spend the money, but we’d have to lay off workers to balance the budget. The workers would then have no money to spend.

If we didn’t lay off workers, we’d have to raise taxes. Taxpayers would have no more money to spend.

ANALYSIS: This is a pretty good argument. The spokesperson shows that the plan has a downside which will offset it’s benefits.

But, there is always a third option: cutting spending without cutting salaries. The right answer points out that the government could cut its out of province spending (e.g. they could import fewer machines).

___________

1. This would strengthen the spokesperson’s argument. The taxpayers wouldn’t spend their extra money in province. The goal of the tax was to boost provincial economic activity.
2. This doesn’t affect the argument. The taxpayers will still spend the money once they got it, and the workers will still get laid off because spending will be cut.
3. The spokesperson didn’t say anything about angering taxpayers. The point was that if there was a new tax, taxpayers would have no extra money to spend.
4. The spokesperson was talking about what would happen if there was a tax rebate. This answer describes what happens if there is not a tax rebate.
5. CORRECT. This shows that the spokesperson ignores a third possibility. The workers could keep their salaries, but money could be saved by cutting imports of out of province products.

Recap: The question begins with “Party spokesperson: The opposition party’s proposal to stimulate”. It is a Weaken question. Learn more about LSAT Weaken questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.