louierodriguez wrote:PT 37 Section 4 Question 21
What a terrible question.
I thought the same
thing when I was initially drilling this question. HOWEVER, this is a great learning opportunity because it makes you think about a central "principle" for principle questions
. Perhaps more so than most other question types in which the scope can be a little bit vague (strengthen/weaken/necessary assumption)., principle questions are heavily dependent on being absolutely supported. If it isn't mentioned in the stimulus, it probably
isn't the right answer (I cannot think of an instance in which this maxim is broken but I am always hesitant to talk about general overarching rules for the LSAT). Check this out....
Short-term consequences are likely to be painful
Long-term benefits are obscure
Newly enacted laws should be repealed ONLY IF circumstances are dire, they need a period of immunity
The "only if" part is good to take note of but it isn't necessarily the key to this question. The key to this question is the "period of immunity" part. Why should we have a period of immunity? Well the author says that its because short term consequences are painful BUT long-term benefits aren't so easily seen. Why would the author conclude this though? Well the author seems to be assuming
that the long-term benefits are more important than the short-term pains. How could we justify his conclusion then? We could justify it by saying that the long-term actually IS more important than the short-term.
A beneficial exercise, I think, for principle questions is to eliminate wrong answers because of words/phrases that don't match. Principle questions are very similar to sufficient assumption questions in this regard.
(A) "Voters think its consequences will be." This is never mentioned. We don't care.
(B) This looks like what we thought.
(C) "Repeal should be least as difficult as the passage." We aren't comparing the two and we don't know really anything about the passage.
(D) The beginning looks like the OPPOSITE of what we want and this falls short like (C) does by comparing the passage with the repeal.
(E) This looks decent. However, "should be more beneficial" is not something this argument is talking about. The argument is saying that the long-termconsequences "should be considered
Trust me, I hate LSAT questions sometimes. However, I encourage you to think about the ones you hate as something that you can truly learn from. Sometimes we drop the ball on questions and not every wrong answer is going to give us these HUGE lessons we can take away. However, the questions that you think are WRONG or the questions that you HATE are often the most beneficial ones.
Hope that helps.