LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

 smile22
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: Jan 05, 2014
|
#14335
I realize that this is a strengthen question. Could you please explain how answer C strengthens the argument?
 Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2011
|
#14336
Hi Smile,

That's a good question.The author says that the town's frequent water emergencies could be avoided if they would give people incentive to conserve. The author says that conservation is discouraged by current policies, which charge a flat rate up to a certain point; beyond that point, people are charged a substantial, per-liter rate (in that case, if the threshold were very high, people could use as much as they wanted without worrying about extra fees).

The question asks for the answer choice that most strengthens the author's argument. Answer choice (C) provides that the threshold is higher than most people's requirements. This strengthens the author's argument that currently, there is no incentive to conserve—people can use as much as they need, or more, without passing the threshold and getting charged extra fees. (if, on the other hand, the threshold were below the level of most people's needs, then the substantial additional fees would provide an incentive to start conserving water).

Tough question--please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve
 smile22
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: Jan 05, 2014
|
#14339
Hi Steve,

Thank you for the explanation. So, basically I want to strengthen the fact that Springhill's current system does not promote water conservation? So, D strengthens that fact by saying that Springhill does not promote conservation because the threshold that they enforce to society exceeds people's actual needs? If Springhill did encourage conservation, then the threshold would be below people's actual needs. This would therefore weaken the fact that Springhill discourages water conservation, right?

Thanks in advance for your help.
 Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2011
|
#14343
Hi smile,

You got it--if they set the threshold lower, then people would have to consider how much water they really needed to use, and whether cutting back could avoid or eliminate extra fees. As you said, a high threshold allows people to use as much as they like to use without extra fees.

Nice work!

~Steve
 smile22
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: Jan 05, 2014
|
#14344
Thanks so much for your help!
 caroline222
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: Jan 07, 2021
|
#83391
I am struggling to identify what the conclusion of this argument is. I thought it was that the water emergencies could be avoided if Springhill would introduce permanent economic incentives for conservation. But it seems like the answer choices are tailored to the last sentence, which is implying that they could use the per-liter rate as an economic disincentive to go over the threshold. I thought for strengthen questions we were supposed to focus on strengthening the connection between the premises and the conclusion, but I am kind of lost as to how that is happening in this question.
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 3777
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#83535
You're absolutely right about the main conclusion in this stimulus, caroline222 - it is the second sentence. But there is an intermediate conclusion as well, which is the claim that the current scheme discourages conservation, and if we can strengthen that intermediate conclusion it would help strengthen the main one. To strengthen the intermediate conclusion we need to focus on the evidence that supposedly supports it, which is about the threshold. If the threshold is low enough to encourage conservation, the whole argument falls apart, so we strengthen the argument by saying that is is not low enough to do so. Answer C does that for us.
User avatar
 Albertlyu
  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: Jul 18, 2020
|
#86386
Adam Tyson wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:47 pm You're absolutely right about the main conclusion in this stimulus, caroline222 - it is the second sentence. But there is an intermediate conclusion as well, which is the claim that the current scheme discourages conservation, and if we can strengthen that intermediate conclusion it would help strengthen the main one. To strengthen the intermediate conclusion we need to focus on the evidence that supposedly supports it, which is about the threshold. If the threshold is low enough to encourage conservation, the whole argument falls apart, so we strengthen the argument by saying that is is not low enough to do so. Answer C does that for us.
thanks, Adam, please may I ask why E is incorrect? the author's point is that the town discourages water conservation by using a threshold system for using water. E gave us that unless a change is approved by the town council, no change will be allowed, which means the said change has never been approved, which could be interpreted as a sign of the town deterring water conservation.

I understand why C is right, as there is a gap in the stimulus which is that the author never established the current threshold is high enough to be deemed as deterring water conservation, and C fills that void, it this also the reason why E is wrong? as even with E, we still do not know if the current threshold constitutes a deterrence against water saving.

thanks

Albert

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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