LSAT 111 – Section 3 – Question 19

LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 19

October 2001

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:30

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT111 S3 Q19
+LR
+Exp
Must be false +MBF
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Value Judgment +ValJudg
Analogy +An
A
11%
164
B
3%
161
C
67%
168
D
6%
161
E
12%
160
148
159
169
 +Harder 147.206 +SubsectionMedium

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.

Summary

The columnist concludes that the government shouldn’t tax certain hunting and recreational items just because they have associated risks.

Notable Valid Inferences

This is a MBT Except question. For this question, all the wrong answers will be consistent with the conclusion that the government shouldn’t tax certain recreational items just because they’re dangerous. The right answer will conflict with this conclusion by offering information that suggests the government should tax certain recreational items just because they’re dangerous.

A
The government should fund education by taxing nonessential sports equipment and recreational gear.

This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It does not conflict with the conclusion that certain recreational items shouldn’t be taxed just because they’re dangerous. Instead, it proposes that certain items should be taxed to fund education.

B
The government should not tax those who avoid dangerous activities and adopt healthy lifestyles.

This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It does not conflict with the conclusion that certain recreational items shouldn’t be taxed just because they’re dangerous. Instead, it argues that people with healthy lifestyles should not be taxed.

C
The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous.

This conflicts with the conclusion by suggesting the complete opposite of what the columnist argues. (C) says the government should create financial disincentives for dangerous activities, while the columnist says the government should not.

D
The government should not create financial disincentives for people to race cars or climb mountains, even though these are dangerous activities.

This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It supports the conclusion by offering a supporting principle: the government should not create financial disincentives for 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.

This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It does not conflict with the conclusion that certain recreational items shouldn’t be taxed just because they’re dangerous.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply