LSAT 102 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q1

LR Question 1 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Taxpayer: For the last ten years, Metro City’s bridge-maintenance…

QUESTION TYPE: Main Point

CONCLUSION: Metro City’s bridge program was dumb and wasteful. They should have spent more on maintenance.

REASONING: If the city had spent 15 million per year for ten years, instead of 1 million, then they would only have had to pay 10 million for repairs. Now they must pay 400 million in emergency repairs for their stupidity.

ANALYSIS: This seems like a pretty good argument. The city is paying over $250 million extra as punishment for not having steadily paid for maintenance.

___________

1. CORRECT. If the city had done this, then they wouldn’t be stuck with a monstrous repair bill.
2. Not necessarily. Even with sufficient money, it’s possible to bungle a bridge program.
3. The taxpayer argues the opposite. If the city had spend more on maintenance, then they wouldn’t have to pay so much for repairs.
4. We have no idea why the city didn’t spend enough on bridges.
5. We don’t know what the bridges cost to build.

Recap: The question begins with “Taxpayer: For the last ten years, Metro City’s bridge-maintenance”. It is a Identify The Conclusion question. Learn how to master LSAT Identify questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.