LSAT 141 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Municipal legislator: The mayor proposes that the city…

QUESTION TYPE: Identify the conclusion

CONCLUSION: There’s no harm in accepting the gift of high tech streetlights.

REASONING: Competitive bidding prevents gifts from influencing city contract bids. And the gift’s only ulterior motive is publicity during an upcoming convention. (The lights will be seen by mayors of other cities)

ANALYSIS: The word “surely” is significant. Anytime someone says “surely” they are indicating their opinion. Ironically, “surely” indicates the author is not sure.

Any statement of opinion, of uncertainty, is usually the author’s conclusion. So this argument’s conclusion is that there’s no harm to accepting the gifts.

Another way of looking at it is to ask: why are they telling me this? In this case, the argument is about whether to accept the gift. The author concludes “why not? There’s no harm”. All of the evidence is aimed at showing this lack of harm (competitive process prevents corruption, only ulterior motive is aimed at other cities).

___________

1. The author didn’t say this. The company might very well want to influence bidding. What the author did say is that competitive bidding prevents influence.
2. CORRECT. See the analysis above.
3. This contradicts the stimulus. The author said there’s no harm in allowing the gift.
4. This is a fact that supports the conclusion. The conclusion is that therefore there’s no harm to accepting the gift.
5. This is a fact supporting the conclusion. Since the motive of the gift is not aimed at the city, then there’s no harm in accepting the gift.