to the top

#6- The Transit Authority's proposal to increase fares by 40

PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
Posts: 6670
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:19 pm
Points: 3,343

Please post your questions below!
LSAT Apprentice
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:02 pm
Points: 5

I was able to pick 3 contenders for this question B C & D.

I eliminated B because I felt the use of the words proponent and contradiction were too excessive when compared to the argument structure of the stimulus. Is that the right line of thinking?

I chose C because it just felt like the best of the 3

I eliminated D because the answer mentioned a recommendation being defended (probably an oversimplification). The argument doesn't seem to do this as it states the conclusion, states an objection, and then states an undesired consequence of not following through with the recommendation. This answer suggests all of this happened plus defense against the more objections. Is this the correct way to view this answer choice?
Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:18 am
Points: 436


Answer choice (B) is wrong because the author does not discuss proponents of any alternative at all.

Answer choice (D) doesn't refer to "defense" at all. You might say that, if this WERE the correct answer, the author would have had to defend the proposal - if you object to something else on certain grounds, you should make sure that your own proposal is not subject to the same attack. But the author didn't do that, so this just does not describe what the author did.

The argument structure here is all about attacking. The author wants a certain thing done. The author doesn't even say why it's a good thing. Instead, the author attacks FAILURE to do that thing. So the author is not saying "Raising fares is beneficial" but instead "failing to raise fares would be detrimental." Because doing something detrimental would be bad, the author is trying to get the reader to avoid the course of action that would lead to that. But the course of action that would lead to the detrimental consequences is a course that FAILS to raise fares. To avoid not raising fares I'd have to...raise fares! So, without directly showing that raising fares is GOOD, the author has indirectly shown that it's better than NOT doing it. This is why answer choice (C) is perfect.

Of course, the author's argument only shows that not raising fares has a bad consequence, not that raising fares by exactly 40 percent is right. But that's not relevant here, since we're just supposed to describe the method of reasoning used.

Robert Carroll