LSAT 103 – Section 1 – Question 18

LSAT 103 - Section 1 - Question 18

September 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: 0:55

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
PT103 S1 Q18
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
3%
159
B
3%
156
C
90%
165
D
1%
160
E
3%
157
130
140
151
 +Easier 147.884 +SubsectionMedium

Politician: A government that taxes incomes at a rate of 100 percent will generate no revenue because all economic activity will cease. So it follows that the lower the rate of income tax, the more revenue the government will generate by that tax.

Economist: Your conclusion cannot be correct, since it would mean that an income tax of 0 percent would generate the maximum revenue.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The economist concludes that, contrary to what the politician says, it cannot be true that the lower the rate of income tax, the more revenue generated. As evidence, the economist points out that an income tax rate of 0 percent would generate the most revenue.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The economist counters the position held by the politician. He does this by showing that the politician’s conclusion would lead to an obviously false outcome. It is obviously false that an income tax rate of 0 percent would generate the maximum amount of income tax revenue.

A
stating a general principle that is incompatible with the conclusion the politician derives
The economist does not state a general principle. Rather, the economist is addressing a specific concern about the effect income tax rates would or would not have on revenue.
B
providing evidence that where the politician’s advice has been adopted, the results have been disappointing
The economist does not present this kind of evidence. Rather, the economist discusses the effects on a theoretical level.
C
arguing that the principle derived by the politician, if applied in the limiting case, leads to an absurdly false conclusion
The principle derived by the politician is the lower the income tax rate, the more revenue the government will generate. The limiting case is applying the politician’s principle to an instance where the income tax rate is 0 percent.
D
undermining the credibility of the politician by openly questioning the politician’s understanding of economics
The economist is not undermining the politician’s credibility. Rather, the economist is simply pointing out that the politician’s predictions would lead to obviously false conclusion.
E
attacking the politician’s argument by giving reason to doubt the truth of a premise
The economist does not attack a premise asserted by the politician. Rather, the economist criticizes the politician’s conclusion by pointing out an obviously false outcome.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 103 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply