LSAT 153 – Section 2 – Question 24

LSAT 153 - Section 2 - Question 24

June 2019

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

Target time: 1:11

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
PT153 S2 Q24	+LR	Sufficient assumption +SA Link Assumption +LinkA Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 2% 151 B 28% 159 C 12% 160 D 49% 165 E 9% 154	153 162 170	+Hardest	146.684 +SubsectionMedium

Editorialist: Landis, one of this city’s top elected officials, recently spent $10,000 to redecorate his office. Many people believe that if Landis used city funds, then he misused public money, thereby violating his official duties. But Landis is guilty of such violation regardless of the money’s source. Spending $10,000 so frivolously is clearly immoral when so many people in our city live in poverty.

Summary

The author concludes that Landis violated his official duties. This is based on the fact that Landis’s spending of $10,000 was immoral.

Missing Connection

The conclusion asserts that Landis violated his official duties. But we have no idea from the premise or from the contextual statements what Landis’s official duties include. Why does spending $10,000 in a way that’s immoral constitute a violation of official duties? We want to learn that Landis’s official duties require the avoidance of immoral spending.

The money Landis used was not his own money.

Learning the origin of the money does not establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.

It is immoral to spend money on luxury items when there are people who lack basic necessities.

We already know as a premise that Landis’s spending was clearly immoral. Our goal is to prove that Landis’s spending was a violation of official duties. (B) doesn’t establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.

Landis knew about or participated in the decision to redecorate his office.

What Landis knew concerning the redocoration doesn’t establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.

Every public official has an official duty never to perform immoral actions.

(D) establishes that avoiding immoral actions (such as immoral spending) is part of Landis’s official duties. So the fact that Landis engaged in immoral spending proves that Landis violated his official duty to avoid immoral actions.

Had Landis not spent the money redecorating the office, it would have been used to help alleviate poverty in the city.

What Landis would have done with the money had he not spent it on redecorating doesn’t establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.

LSAT 153 – Section 2 – Question 24

LSAT 153 - Section 2 - Question 24

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 153 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel