Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S4 · Q1 Taxpayer: For the last ten years

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Taxpayer: For the last ten years, Metro City’s bridge-maintenance budget of $1 million annually has been a prime example of fiscal irresponsibility.

Conclusion

The $1 million / year bridge-maintenance budget has been a prime example of fiscal responsibility.

Evidence

In a well-run program, they'd spend $15 million a year on maintenance, which would limit deterioration and thus limit money they'd need to reconstruct the bridge to $10 million.

Instead, because Metro City has only been paying $1 million / year for the last ten years, they now need to do some emergency reconstruction of bridges that will cost $400 million.

Evaluate

Whenever we're doing a Main Conclusion question, we prime our brain (before reading the paragraph) by reminding ourselves that on Main Conclusion we usually find the conclusion either - in the first sentence, or - as some form of Rebuttal statement

That way, as we read this first sentence, we're listening to it like it might be the Conclusion. We're reading it thinking,

In this case, yes! The first sentence has the very opinionated claim: a prime example of fiscal irresponsibility.

Does the rest of the paragraph try to convince us that the maintenance budget is an example of fiscal irresponsibility?

Yes. It says,

The idea is that if you spend $15 million a year, then you only have to do about $10 million in repairs. Over ten years that would be $150 + 10 million, or $160 million.

Instead, they tried to cheap-out (economize), and they've only spent $1 million per year, and now they have a repair bill of $400 million. Over ten years, that's $10 + 400 million, or $410 million.

Goal

Once we find the conclusion on Main Conclusion, we've done the hard part. Picking our answer just means finding the closest match to whichever claim we determined was the conclusion.

So let's look for an answer that means the same thing as: for the last 10 years, MC's bridge maintenance budget has been fiscally irresponsible.

1.

The main point of the taxpayer's argument is that Metro City

  1. Correct

    should have budgeted substantially more

    Why this is right

    This claim is not as matchy-matchy with the first sentence as we would normally expect on Main Conclusion, but this question stem actually says Main Point. These question stems arise so rarely that we don't bother to call them their own question type, but historically Main Point questions are a little different from Main Conclusion. The answer sometimes acts like Main Conclusion and just reiterates the conclusion. Sometimes it gives us an implied conclusion (like here). Sometimes it says "Conclusion, because Premise". So we loosen our standards a little for Main Point. Since our author was saying "it was fiscally irresponsible to try to economize and spend only $1 million / year on bridge maintenance", it's implied that our author thinks "they should have spend more". He presents an example of a "well-run" program, and they spend more ($15 million / year vs. $1 million / year).

    Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    76% picked this

  2. would have had a well-run

    Not About Reconstruction

    The author's main point is that the maintenance budget was irresponsibly low, and because of it, now they have a whopping $400 million reconstruction bill. The author thinks it would have been a better run program if they had spent more money for maintenance; that way they would be able to spend less on reconstruction.

    8% picked this

  3. is spending more than it

    Opposite

    The author is saying that they're spending less than they need to on maintenance, which is why they now have a huge emergency repair bill. They are paying $1 million / year on maintenance, and the author thinks they should be spending closer to $15 million / year.

    12% picked this

  4. is economizing on its bridge

    Unsupported: save money for emergency

    The author never implied that Metro City had some long-term strategy to save money for emergencies. The author was saying that Metro City was trying to get away with spending less money on maintenance, and their gamble blew up in their face --- now they have to spend $400 million to fix it. Even if this were a factually accurate description of Metro City's behavior (it wasn't), it would still fail to capture the Main Conclusion, because the author's opinion about fiscal irresponsibility needs to be conveyed by the conclusion we pick.

    1% picked this

  5. has bridges that are more

    Out of Scope: cost of building

    This paragraph never discusses the cost of building these bridges.

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free