LSAT 102 – Section 4 – Question 17

LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 17

June 1998

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:13

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
PT102 S4 Q17
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
28%
162
B
69%
167
C
1%
158
D
1%
154
E
1%
155
145
156
168
 +Harder 146.127 +SubsectionMedium

Concerned citizen:
The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed restoration of city hall, is right when he notes that the building is outdated, but that the restoration would be expensive at a time when the budget is already tight. We cannot afford such a luxury item in this time of financial restraint, he says. However, I respectfully disagree. The building provides the last remaining link to the days of the city’s founding, and preserving a sense of municipal history is crucial to maintaining respect for our city government and its authority. So to the question, “Can we really afford to?” I can only respond, “Can we afford not to?”

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The citizen concludes that the mayor is incorrect that the city can’t afford to restore city hall, which would strain the city’s limited budget. In support, the citizen explains that the building is the last link to the time of the city’s founding, and that preserving history helps to maintain respect for the city government. This supports the sub-conclusion that the city can’t afford not to restore city hall.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is an “equivocation” flaw, where the same word is used in two different ways. The citizen rejects the mayor’s point about financial “affordability.” This is supported with an appeal to cultural or historic “affordability.”

A
The argument is solely an emotional appeal to history.
The citizen’s appeal to history isn’t solely emotional, because it also includes the claim that history helps to maintain the city’s authority, which is a more pragmatic consideration.
B
The argument ambiguously uses the word “afford.”
The mayor’s claim that the city can’t “afford” the restoration refers to financial affordability. The citizen’s question of whether the city can “afford” not to restore the building refers instead to cultural or historic considerations, sidestepping the mayor’s point.
C
The argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor.
The citizen doesn’t appeal to the mayor’s authority—especially because the argument is aimed at discrediting the mayor’s position!
D
The argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive.
The citizen accepts the mayor’s point that the restoration would be expensive, but there’s no reason to think that claim is incorrect.
E
The argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as “outdated” and “luxury.”
The citizen’s argument doesn’t rely on words such as “outdated” and “luxury” at all. Those words are part of the mayor’s argument, with which the citizen disagrees.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply