LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8928
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#59021
Please post your questions below!
 gcs4v333
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: Oct 09, 2018
|
#60467
I don't understand how "when something valuable costs no money you get over-consumption and long lines" is the overall conclusion. It seems to support the idea that "What is needed is a system for charging people for the use of roads during rush hour. Then rush hour congestion will abate."

If you take out "when something valuable costs no money you get over-consumption and long lines" then that last sentence doesn't make any sense. Or, it makes sense, but there's no support for it. All you have is a problem, and a solution that doesn't have any principle to hang its hat on. What am I missing?
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5179
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#60761
I think what you might be missing is the correct answer key, gcs4v333! :-) The correct answer to this question is D, a general claim made in support of the conclusion, and not E, the overall conclusion. I tagged this claim as a subordinate conclusion, based on the ice cream store evidence and supporting the claim about ruch hour congestion abating.

You got it right, and your analysis is good! You must have just looked at the wrong part of the answer key when checking into it. Happens to the best of us!
 menkenj
  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Dec 02, 2020
|
#89057
I was really thrown by the phrase, "we learn from this that..." Does this indicate that the prior sentence is supporting what follows?

I kept trying to use the find the conclusion strategy and both ways made sense for me when deciding between the 2nd and 3rd sentences. What threw me was that phrase and I think I ended up confusing myself in the moment.
 menkenj
  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Dec 02, 2020
|
#89059
I see now. I completely missed this one and must have been really tired toward the end of the section!
 hope
  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: Feb 13, 2018
|
#90502
What is the conclusion of this stimulus? Thanks.
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1386
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
|
#90730
The conclusion here, hope, is that we need a system for charging drivers for rush hour driving to make the congestion abate. We want to think about what the author would want us to remember at the end. What's the point of this whole paragraph anyway? Does the author want us to change, ice cream or road congestion? You can also do things like look for conclusion indicators, but there aren't always great ones. You can also think about what the conclusion does in an argument. The conclusion of an argument is what is supported, but the main conclusion will not support any other part of the argument. That matches for our road congestion statement here. The fact that we need a system for charging for road congestion doesn't support any other part of the argument. It is supported by the ice cream analogy.

Hope that helps!
User avatar
 lemonade42
  • Posts: 95
  • Joined: Feb 23, 2024
|
#106503
Is the claim that "when something valuable costs no money you get overconsumption and long lines" a conditional statement or causal? Isn't "when" is a sufficient condition? So wouldn't that mean the author is doing an MN by saying money ---> no long line (no traffic congestion)? If it was causal, I can see how when there is no cause (where you do have something cost money) then you get no effect (no traffic congestion).
User avatar
 Chandler H
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: Feb 09, 2024
|
#106592
lemonade42 wrote: Thu May 16, 2024 3:06 pm Is the claim that "when something valuable costs no money you get overconsumption and long lines" a conditional statement or causal? Isn't "when" is a sufficient condition? So wouldn't that mean the author is doing an MN by saying money ---> no long line (no traffic congestion)? If it was causal, I can see how when there is no cause (where you do have something cost money) then you get no effect (no traffic congestion).
Hi lemonade42,

It is not necessarily a conditional statement, although it may look like one—or at least, not any more than "drive to work :arrow: complain about congestion" is. The mayor is not speaking strictly logically; the more important thing to pay attention to is the tone and broad overview of their argument.

Either way, however, it doesn't matter, since this is not a Flaw question! MN or not, the sentence still plays one specific role in the argument, which we're being asked to identify.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.