QUESTION TYPE: Point at Issue
ARGUMENTS: Marisa says we need to loosen regulations in order to raise the property value [i.e. price] of undeveloped land.
Tyne says we need to keep regulations in order to preserve the value [i.e. beauty, etc.] of natural undeveloped lands.
ANALYSIS: I found this a hard question, because Tyne misinterpreted Maria so badly that his reply almost doesn’t make sense. I had to come back to it and read it carefully.
One hint is to look for concepts one person mentions, but the other doesn’t. The “property” in front of “property values” tells you Maria is referring to price.
Tyne doesn’t mention price or property. When he says value, he’s referring to the value of natural beauty, nature, etc. “value of natural, undisturbed areas” is what shows you he had a different definition.
- You can tell Tyne has understood regulations, because he talks about the stringency of zoning regulations affecting developers. That’s the same sense that Maria uses regulation.
- Same as B. Tyne only mentions development through the word “developers”, and he uses this in the same sense as Maria: people who build on property.
- Tyne doesn’t use the word prohibitive, but his use of the word “stringency” in reference to regulations shows that he has the same definition as Maria.
- CORRECT. See the analysis above. Maria talks about property’s market value, while Tyne talks about the value of unspoiled natural ecosystems.
- Tyne doesn’t use the word significantly, but he did understand that the regulations heavily affect developers. His use of the word “stringency” shows this understanding.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly