LSAT 158 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q21

LR Question 21 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Developer: The builders of the Glen Veil apartment complex…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify

CONCLUSION: Residents should vote to fund construction of the road.

REASONING: The road is required to build the complex. The complex will strengthen the economy. A stronger economy will benefit everyone.

ANALYSIS: This feels like a good argument. If something benefits everyone, shouldn’t we fund it? Not necessarily. Think about your own budget. If something benefits you, do you automatically buy it? No! You don’t have infinite money. Maybe you need to save, maybe something else benefits you more, etc.

The developer hasn’t shown that you should fund a project merely because it has a benefit. To support their argument we should show exactly that. So, look for a conditional statement in this format:

If benefit everyone ➞ should vote in favor

Knowing this prephrase, you can quickly filter answers. The correct answer has to have “should vote in favour” as the necessary condition. (Or, “should not vote in favour” as the sufficient”.)

Only two answers have this format, so only those two answers could even possibly be right.

___________

1. This is the best wrong answer. The format of this answer is right, but problem is that the sufficient condition doesn’t match the stimulus.
    
   Is building the road necessary to strengthen the economy? No, it’s just sufficient. We could imagine ways to strengthen a town’s economy without building an apartment complex. For instance, if the town discovered oil, it would probably get richer even without the new road and complex. So since building the road isn’t strictly necessary for economic improvement, this answer doesn’t apply to the argument.
2. This answer is an incorrect negation of the right answer! It translates to: “If construction won’t benefit residents ➞ should not vote in favor.” Negated, this reads: “if vote in favor ➞ benefit residents”. We need vote in favor as the necessary condition.
3. We need a sufficient condition to vote for funding. But this answer tells you what to do if you are funding. The structure is: “if construction funded ➞ use tax not debt”. Eliminate.
4. We need a sufficient condition to vote to fund a project with a tax. This one instead talks about being required to pay tax: “if required to pay tax ➞ benefit”. Eliminate. We need “should vote for tax” as the necessary condition.
5. CORRECT. This matches our prephrase and conditional statement. This tells us that whenever there is a benefit to a tax, citizens should vote for that tax.

Recap: The question begins with “Developer: The builders of the Glen Veil apartment complex”. It is a Principle Justify question. Learn how to master LSAT Principle Justify questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.