Question from Prep Test 30 (December 1999) -- LR1 #19

lavenderb181
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:59 pm

Question from Prep Test 30 (December 1999) -- LR1 #19

Postby lavenderb181 » Tue May 03, 2011 6:24 pm

Hey everyone,

I've been doing practice sections and usually have questions about a few problems. Please let me know if there is a different forum where it'd be better to post my questions.Thanks in advance!

LR 1 #19

Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer.But no one thinks the government should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger.So by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles.

Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT:

(A) The government should fund education by taxing non essential sports equipment and recreational gear.
(B)The government should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities and adopt healthy lifestyles.
(C)The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.
(D)The government should not create financial disincentives for people to race cars or climb mountain, even though these are dangerous activities
(E)The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannot afford to pay for them.

Correct answer is C. This question makes little sense to me. A seems to come out of left field - seems so out of the scope of the argument that it's difficult to determine if it's logically consistent or not. Same with E. The more time I spend looking at this problem, the more confused I get.

benito
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:09 pm

Re: Question from Prep Test 30 (December 1999) -- LR1 #19

Postby benito » Tue May 03, 2011 7:54 pm

Well you need to remember that your only task is to determine which question choice is clearly Inconsistent with the logic of the columnist. The columnist's conclusion essentially boils down to this: the government should not impose financial impediments to stop people from doing potentially dangerous things, i.e. owning parrots, parachutes, hunting equipment etc. So the correct answer choice will directly violate this principle, the incorrect ones although they may not necessarily conform to it directly, are not clearly inconsistent logically.

Answer choice A and E simply do not speak to the columnist's principle, that can be confusing and throw you off but remember for this question type an answer choice doesn't have to be totally consistent with the principle to be wrong, all it has to be is not INCONSISTENT which are two different things, hope that makes sense.

Answer choice C is the only one that directly violates the principle, it says the government SHOULD try to take action to dissuade people from dangerous activities, making it the only answer choice logically inconsistent with the columnist's principle.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 180orDie, Alexandros and 6 guests