LSAT 3 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q6

LR Question 6 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The Transit Authority’s proposal to increase fares…

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The Transit Authority’s proposal to increase fares must be implemented.

REASONING: If it is not implemented then there will be large cuts in service and much ridership will be lost.

ANALYSIS: We face a trade-off here. If we increase fares then some riders will be hurt. But if we don’t then we have to cut service and some riders will be hurt.

The argument attempts to prove its conclusion by showing that an alternative plan is a bad idea. It’s not a terrible argument but it does ignore possible third strategies such as raising taxes to increase funding.

___________

1. The argument admits that there will be undesirable consequences for some riders.
2. The problem here is that it talks about “any alternative position.” Proponents of the alternative in question face a contradiction because riders are hurt in either case. But there might be other proposals that do not face a contradiction.
3. CORRECT. Bingo. By showing that an alternative is flawed the argument hopes to convince us that its plan is the best idea.
4. Actually the proposed course of actions faces similar objections: some riders will be hurt.
5. We have no example of what happened when fares were increased in the past.

Recap: The question begins with “The Transit Authority’s proposal to increase fares”. It is a Method of Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Method of Reasoning questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.