LSAT 37, Logical Reasoning II, Q14, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: The fact that politicians in a certain…

QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Reducing government spending wasn’t the only reason the scholarship program was cut.

REASONING: The government could have cut even more spending if they had cut military spending.

ANALYSIS: The point is that cutting spending wasn’t the only reason the scholarships were cut. This is a good argument.

It doesn’t claim that the government should have cut military spending. But there must be some additional reason scholarships were cut. (e.g. “scholarships are useless, but national defense is important.”)

Another important part of the argument is that achieving the goal would have been even easier if they had cut military spending. Clearly, cutting spending wasn’t their only goal.

Most of the wrong answers don’t even involve a goal. 

___________

1. This is a good argument, but it doesn’t show a goal or that Phyllis had an easier way to reach her goal.
2. This is a good argument. But it doesn’t show that there was an even better way to achieve a certain goal.
3. This just tells us how Sally and Jim could have avoided their problems. It doesn’t say their real reason for doing something was different from their stated reason.
4. This is a good argument. Roger was just being kind. But Roger didn’t say what his goal was for adopting the cats.
5. CORRECT. Thelma’s actions support her goal, but she could have done even better by doing something else. So there must be an additional reason. 

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---