LSAT 149 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q16

LR Question 16 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The tax bill passed 2 years ago provides substantial…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: The bill has created many jobs in the area and raised tax revenues.

REASONING: Last year, Plastonica opened a new plastics factory locally with 75 jobs. It qualified for incentives.

ANALYSIS: There are well constructed incentives, and there are poorly constructed incentives. Consider these two different incentives. My goal is to get you to sleep more. I could:

• Pay you for every night you sleep at least three hours
• Pay you for every night you sleep at least eight hours.

You (hopefully) already sleep more than three hours a night. So in the first case, I’m paying you to keep doing what you already do. In which case, you don’t have to change and the incentives are a costly failure. In the second case, you would actually have to sleep more to get paid.

So, if Plastonica already was going to open a factory, then the incentives didn’t help and were a waste. The author has to assume the incentives actually convinced Plastonica to open the factory and it wasn’t something they were going to do anyway.

___________

1. The argument is actually stronger if it is negated. The negation shows that the area had competition: Plastonica might have opened the factory elsewhere.
   Negation: If Plastonica hadn’t opened the factory locally, it might have opened it elsewhere.
2. CORRECT. If this isn’t true, it means Plastonica would have opened the factory even without the incentives. So the money paid to Plastonica wasn’t necessary and was a waste.
   Negation: Plastonica would have opened the factory locally even without the incentives.
3. It doesn’t matter what critics claim. It only matters what actually happens in reality. Claims are one thing, but the argument depends on facts. Such as whether new jobs actually were created, etc.
4. This answer is mildly helpful to the argument, but it isn’t necessary. We only care whether Plastonica was already planning to open the factory in the area.
   Negation: If Plastonica had not opened the plastics factory in the area, it would not have opened it anywhere else either.
5. So? Beliefs are irrelevant. We only care about facts. The LSAT makes a strict separation between the two. The critics could be wrong! Maybe the bill created jobs regardless of what the critics believe.
    
   Also, this answer negates from “all” to “almost all”. That is not a powerful negation and so negating this type of answer is almost never significant, regardless of what it says. There has to be a meaningful difference between the answer and the negation for an answer to matter.
   Negation: 99.9% of critics believe the tax bill did not create jobs. Lazy Joe, the dumbest critic in the area, disagrees and believes it did create jobs.

Recap: The question begins with “The tax bill passed 2 years ago provides substantial”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Necessary questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.