LSAT 101 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q26

LR Question 26 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Columnist on the arts: My elected government…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen

CONCLUSION: It isn’t wrong for the government to fund particular pieces of artwork that some taxpayers think is horrible. Those taxpayers have suffered no injustice.

REASONING: The government has the right to support the arts in general.

ANALYSIS: Remember, we must conclude that taxpayers suffered no injustice.

It might be a unjust to fund certain individual pieces of art, even if the government has a general right to fund art.

___________

1. This contradicts the columnist. He thinks elected officials should decide whether to fund the arts.
2. CORRECT. If something is warranted in general, that means there was no injustice. Funding the arts is warranted in general, so that means that even funding for horrible pieces of art is justified.
3. We don’t know whether most citizens support abominable art.
4. Maybe citizens should vote against their representatives. But, this doesn’t tell us these citizens didn’t also suffer an injustice.
5. You might suffer an injustice, even if you have no right to complain about it.

Recap: The question begins with “Columnist on the arts: My elected government”. It is a Principle Justify question. Learn more about LSAT Principle Justify questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.