I'd actually disagree, just a tad.
There are a lot of arguments on the LSAT that are simply PREMISE --> CONCLUSION, and that's it - just two pieces. But there are tons of arguments that have more steps to them than that. We talk about these arguments as having an intermediary conclusion, but there's nothing to stop an argument from having two, three, or even more intermediary steps between the premise and the conclusion. Often times a premise
could be broken down into multiple argument leaps, but it may just simpler to think of it as a unitary premise.
So, if I were being really strict about the various pieces, I'd break it down like this instead:
- PREMISES: 1) Museum's revenue is not greater than expense
2) mandate = 5% increase in min. wage
FIRST INTERMEDIARY CONCLUSION: mandate = significantly increase museum oper. exp.
SECOND INTERMEDIARY CONCLUSION: museum must raise fees or decr. services
FINAL CONCLUSION: mandate = adverse effect on public
Normally, I might not care about all of those pieces - I might smoosh parts of it together a bit to make it easier to think about a major disconnect somewhere. This question happens to demand that we consider the disconnect between the original premise that the mandate increases minimum wage and the first intermediary conclusion, that the mandate will significantly increase the operating expenses. If I had smooshed these two pieces together and just labeled it 'premise', then the correct answer here would look like it was just supporting a premise - and that would look like a trap.
What do you think?
