QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen
CONCLUSION: We should not pass an ordinance to prohibit skateboarding in the park (even though skateboarding in the park is dangerous).
REASONING: The only reason to pass an ordinance would be to protect the children from danger. But if we ban skateboarding in the park then they will do something more dangerous (skateboard in the street.)
ANALYSIS: This is a pretty good argument. It argues that passing an ordinance would defeat the purpose of passing an ordinance.
This argument barely needs strengthening. The correct answer (E) pretty much states the obvious. It’s your reward for reading through A-D and not choosing them.
Note that E is a moral principle. You can never assume these on the LSAT without stating them. That’s why they often seem too obvious when they’re the correct answer.
- Skateboarding does pose a danger. This doesn’t help.
- This doesn’t help us conclude we should not pass the ordinance.
- This supports the idea of not passing a law but for different reasons. The councilor was arguing that a law would make the problem worse. This argues that the law shouldn’t try to deal with the problem even if it could. That supports the councilor’s conclusion but not his reasoning.
- We’re trying to conclude that we should not pass an ordinance.
- CORRECT. This ties together the councilor’s logic. We shouldn’t act if acting would make the situation worse.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly