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: 8916
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#36297
Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (E)

The argument concludes that rapid population growth can be disastrous for a small city, and supports
that claim by pointing out that quick population growth overloads the city services responsible for
utilities and permits, and most city budgets do not allow for the immediate hiring of new staff.

The reasoning in this argument contains a critical fl aw: it fails to consider that new people bring new
money. Since new people bring new money, it is possible that a small city experiencing rapid growth
would be able to hire the necessary employees, regardless of what the city had budgeted. Since you
are asked to strengthen the argument, you should try to address this issue.

Answer choice (A): This choice merely explains which services the city would consider to be
priorities, but does not speak to whether a city would actually be overloaded by growth and thereby
encounter disaster. If anything, this choice might weaken the argument because it suggests that a city
might avoid disaster initially by focusing on essential services.

Answer choice (B): From a topical standpoint, the stimulus is not really concerned about ideas, and
so this choice is unlikely to be correct.

If you accept that new ideas can have an immediate material affect on the city’s fi nances (which
is possible, but unlikely given the typical pace of municipal governance), then this answer is still
incorrect. If new residents bring new ideas, they might actually come up with ways for the city
to more effectively use its limited resources, so this response might weaken the argument. On the
other hand, new ideas could create a more complicated situation and more problems, which would
slightly strengthen the argument. Either way, “new ideas” can have so many effects—both positive
and negative—that it is unclear what effect this choice would have on the argument, so this choice is
wrong.

Answer choice (C): Since the stimulus concerns the diffi culties of small cities, this response, which
compares small cities to large cities, is irrelevant.

Concluding that this choice strengthens the argument is similar to making a Mistaken Negation. This
choice says that if a city is large, it has an easier time than a small city absorbing rapid population
growth, but the stimulus says that if a city is small, it has a more diffi cult time absorbing rapid
population growth.

Answer choice (D): The consideration of unemployment rates neither assists nor harms the
argument. A low unemployment rate could mean that wages are higher, and it is more expensive to
increase city staff. On the other hand, if people move to a city because of its low unemployment rate,
maybe they are unskilled people in need of work, and it might be easy to inexpensively increase city
staff. The exact impact of unemployment rates is uncertain, so this choice is wrong.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. If most new residents do not begin paying
taxes for at least a year, then the city will bear the costs of providing services to those new residents
but there will be no corresponding increase in funds from those residents for a year. This choice
directly addresses the argument’s disregard of the fact that new people bring new money by stating
that, most of the time, there is a signifi cant period in which there are new people, but no new city tax
money.
 jared.xu
  • Posts: 65
  • Joined: Oct 07, 2011
|
#2102
Am I right to say that the conclusion of the stimulus is the first sentence? If so, C seems to be right as it strengthens the idea that rapid population growth can be disastrous for a small city. The right answer E seems to merely strengthen the last sentence of the stimulus, whereas my choice C strengthens the idea in the conclusion that there are problems associated with rapid population growth for a small city because it cannot absorb them fast enough, the way some large cities can. Thank you in advance for your advice and comments!
 Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2011
|
#2107
The argument can is structured as follows:

Premise: There should be at least one municipal employee for every hundred residents.

Premise: Most city budgets do not allow for the immediate hiring of new staff.

Sub. Conclusion: When too many people move in at once, city services are quickly overloaded.

Conclusion: Rapid population growth can be disastrous for a small city.

To strengthen the conclusion of the argument, you can also strengthen the subsidiary conclusion of that argument. Indeed, if you can provide additional evidence showing that there won't be enough money to quickly hire new staff, it would be even more likely that city services become overloaded. This is why E is correct. What if new residents start paying city taxes immediately? In that case, even if the budget does not allow for the immediate hiring of new staff, there would be a new influx of money to make such hiring possible. By overcoming this weakness, E strengthens the subsidiary conclusion of the argument, and therefore also strengthens the main conclusion.

The reason why C is incorrect is that the comparison between large and small cities is irrelevant to our conclusion. Just because some large cities can absorb rapid population growth more readily than many small cities can does not mean that the small cities are incapable of absorbing that growth: they are just not as capable as the large cities. The conclusion, however, is that rapid population growth can be disastrous for a small city. Notice the absolute language in that conclusion: you cannot strengthen it by comparing small cities to large cities. Let me give you another example: to strengthen the argument that Mary is a lousy tennis player, you cannot say, "Serena Williams is better than Mary." Serena Williams is a tennis champion: just because she is better at tennis than Mary does not establish that Mary is a lousy tennis player.

In general, you cannot strengthen an absolute statement by presenting a comparison; likewise, you cannot strengthen a comparative conclusion with an absolute premise.
 Nina
  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: Sep 11, 2012
|
#6150
I don't quite get in what way does answer E strengthens the argument. :-?
 Elizabeth Mulkey
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: Oct 02, 2012
|
#6151
Hi Nina!

We're looking for the answer choice that best supports the argument, and an important part of this argument is that rapid growth can be bad for a small city. The stimulus talks about lots of people moving in "at once" and says most budgets don't allow for "immediate" hiring.

Answer choice E addresses this time issue. Municipal city services are the kind of thing city residents pay for through taxes. If there are suddenly many more residents, but a lapse in time before they start paying for these services, the city won't be able to keep up. An influx of many more people without additional income of taxes/money for municipal services could produce the "overload" in the stimulus, at least until these people start paying taxes to fund the services. Hope this helps!

Elizabeth
 Nina
  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: Sep 11, 2012
|
#6154
Hey Elizabeth,

thank you very much for your detailed response!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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