LSAT 103 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q4

LR Question 4 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The government has spent heavily to clean groundwater contaminated…

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: The government should spend more money on spill prevention, and less on cleanups.

REASONING: The cleanup budget can’t keep pace with the amount of spills. And the cost of cleaning one site is more than the entire prevention budget.

ANALYSIS: This seems like a good argument. By redirecting funds to prevention, the government will not need to spend as much money on cleanup.

The statement in question is a proposal. Whenever anyone tells you what “should” be done, it’s often the conclusion.

___________

1. Unsupported speculation? That describes a statement of fact. The argument is saying what the government “should” do. There’s no speculation (guessing) in saying what someone “should” do.
2. You have to finish this sentence: “More of the government’s budget should be redirected to preventing spills, therefore _______”
    
   The statement in question doesn’t support any others.
3. CORRECT. The statement in question is the main conclusion. We should spend more money on spills, because then we’ll save even more money on cleanup.
4. This is another way of saying it is an assumption. That’s not true. It’s advice, not an assumption.
5. There’s no other proposal mentioned.

Recap: The question begins with “The government has spent heavily to clean groundwater contaminated”. It is a Role in Argument question. Learn more about LSAT Role questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.