LR Question 23 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen
CONCLUSION: We should raise taxes to provide homes for the homeless and solve the homelessness problem.
REASONING: We can’t fix the homelessness problem by ignoring it. We can only solve the homelessness problem if we give houses to the homeless.
ANALYSIS: There are a couple of problems with the argument. First, there’s a middle ground between ignoring a problem and solving it. Maybe we should help the homeless, but we don’t need to provide a full solution. The right answer tells us we should try to solve the problem.
Second, giving the homeless houses is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition, for solving the problem. So even if we raise taxes, we might not “make the problem go away”.
___________
- This doesn’t tell us when we should adopt a measure. It only tells us when not to (if the necessary condition is missing).
- Same as A. This would tell us not to adopt the measure, since we don’t know if it is sufficient.
- CORRECT. This does it. Raising taxes is required to solve the problem of homelessness. It might not be sufficient, but we do need to do it.
- We don’t know if giving the homeless housing will be enough to solve the problem. They probably need jobs, and money to pay for food, heating, etc.
- Same as D. We don’t know if this measure will be sufficient.
Recap: The question begins with “Politician: Nobody can deny that homelessness is a”. It is a Principle Justify question. Learn how to master LSAT Principle Justify questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
More Resources for Principle Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
I’m not really understanding the difference between A and C. To me they seem to say the same thing. Could you explain this just a little bit further?
What A really means is: if you’re going to adopt something, it must be necessary. So A sets a restriction: you’re not allowed to adopt anything unnecessary.
But A never tells you when you actually should adopt something. Just because a measure is necessary doesn’t, under A, mean you’re obligated to adopt it. It just means that if you DO adopt something, it has to be necessary.
C, on the other hand, fills in that missing piece. It says if a measure is required, it should be adopted. That gives the positive instruction: when a measure is required, we must adopt it. Which is exactly what the politician’s argument does: housing (with more taxes) is required to solve homelessness, therefore we should adopt it.
I think an analogy might help. Imagine you’re baking a cake and flour is required. A is like saying: “Only if an ingredient is required should it go into the cake.” That tells you not to add chocolate chips if they’re not required, but it doesn’t actually say you must add flour. You could still leave the flour out under A.
But C is like saying: “If an ingredient is required for the cake, then it should be added.” That clearly tells you flour must go in, because the cake can’t happen without it.
The politician’s reasoning needs the “flour must go in” version, not the “don’t add chocolate chips if they’re not required” version.
Hopefully that helps!
Ah, that makes sense! Thank you very much, I found that one a bit confusing