LSAT 126 – Section 4 – Question 17

LSAT 126 - Section 4 - Question 17

October 2008

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:15

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
PT126 S4 Q17
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
68%
164
B
9%
157
C
19%
160
D
2%
159
E
2%
156
143
154
166
 +Harder 147.084 +SubsectionMedium

Politician: Some of my opponents have argued on theoretical grounds in favor of reducing social spending. Instead of arguing that there is excessive public expenditure on social programs, my opponents should focus on the main cause of deficit spending: the fact that government is bloated with bureaucrats and self-aggrandizing politicians. It is unwarranted, therefore, to reduce social expenditure.

A
does not address the arguments advanced by the politician’s opponents
The opponents argue “on theoretical grounds” in favor of reducing social spending. The politician fails to show why those theoretical grounds are unpersuasive, or why the opponents’ argument is flawed. This makes the politician’s argument unconvincing.
B
makes an attack on the character of opponents
The politician doesn’t attack the opponents’ character. He criticizes the focus of their argument, but the focus of an argument is not part of one’s character.
C
takes for granted that deficit spending has just one cause
The politician describes the “main cause” of deficit spending. This doesn’t suggest the author believes deficit spending has only one cause. There can be other causes; the politicians identifies what he views to be the main one.
D
portrays opponents’ views as more extreme than they really are
We don’t have any indication that the politician’s description of the opponents’ argument makes the opponents’ position more extreme. All we know is that the opponents’ argument is based on “theoretical grounds.” We don’t know whether this exaggerates the opponents’ position.
E
fails to make clear what counts as excessive spending
The specific level of spending that constitutes “excessive” is not relevant. The opponents argue that there is too much social spending, and the politician responds that we should not reduce social spending. Nothing requires the politician to specify a particular dollar amount.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 126 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply