Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S4 · Q4 Mayor: Citing the severity of the city’s winters

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

Start practicing free

Mayor: Citing the severity of the city’s winters, the city road commissioner has suggested paving our roads with rubberized asphalt, since the pressure of passing vehicles would cause the rubber to flex, breaking up ice on roads and so making ice removal easier and less of a strain on the road-maintenance budget.

Conclusion (Therefore)

The commissioner's suggestion is not financially feasible. Rephrase: It's not financially feasible to pave our roads with rubberized asphalt.

Evidence

Rubberized asphalt is more expensive than plain asphalt and the city's budget for building and maintaining roads cannot be increased.

Evaluate

If we were to predict a Linking answer here, it would just sound like,

But it seems like this very real-world argument is meant for us to analyze with our Objection / Defender brain:

Given that ... we can't increase the budget, and rubberized asphalt costs more than plain asphalt,

How could we still argue that ... it would be financially feasible to pave the roads with rubberized asphalt?

- Maybe we could say that even though we can't increase the budget, we still have money left in the budget, so we could afford to spend more on rubberized.

- Maybe rubberized is more expensive, per unit, but you don't need to buy as much? Or maybe we can get some donations of surplus rubberized asphalt from other cities that have extra?

- Maybe we have to spend more money to procure rubberized asphalt, but then since it makes ice removal easier and causes "less of a strain on the road-maintenance budget" we end up saving the extra money we spent.

Goal

Look for an answer ruling out one of these aforementioned objections (or one we didn't think of):

- We can't get free asphalt donated to us from anyone - We don't have extra money left in our current budget that we could use on rubberized asphalt - The money rubberized asphalt would save us on our road-maintenance budget would not offset the extra cost of the rubberized asphalt

4.

Which one of the following is assumed by the mayor's argument?

  1. Using rubberized asphalt to pave

    Too Strong: wouldn't have any

    The author doesn't need to think that the only advantage rubberized asphalt has is facilitating ice removal. Maybe it also looks cooler and smells great. That doesn't change the author's argument in any way, since her argument is just about whether it is / isn't financially feasible, not whether it is / isn't desirable.

    3% picked this

  2. The severity of winters in

    Irrelevant Distinction

    This answer has the lovable form of ruling-out an idea using "not" (that is frequently how correct answers on Necessary Assumption appear). If we negate this answer, does it weaken? The severity of winters does vary significantly from year to year. No, that has no effect. There's no way to use that idea to suddenly argue that "even though rubberized asphalt is more expensive and our budget can't be increased, it is financially feasible to use rubberized".

    1% picked this

  3. It would cost more to

    Irrelevant Comparison

    There's no reason the author needs to think "rubber + asphalt" costs more than "rubber + cement" or any other material used to pave roads. If we negate this and say that "adding particles of rubber asphalt costs the same as adding particles of rubber to other road materials", that's not going to hurt the argument in any way. The author only cares that rubberized asphalt costs more than plain asphalt. She doesn't care if rubberized asphalt costs more than rubberized cement.

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    Savings in the cost of

    Why this is right

    Like (B), this has the lovable ruling-out "not" that is typical of so many correct answers in Necessary Assumption. If we negate it, does it weaken? The savings we could get from the lower cost of ice removal (were we to use rubberized asphalt), would pay for the increased expense of using rubberized asphalt. Heck yeah, that weakens! This negation would allow us to argue that paving the roads with rubberized asphalt is financially feasible. Sure it costs more, and sure we can't increase our budget, but we don't need to --- the rubberized asphalt pays for itself because of how it reduces the part of our budget that goes to ice removal.

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

    90% picked this

  5. The techniques the city currently

    Weakens, if anything

    This also has the ruling-out "not". When we negate it, does it weaken? The techniques they currently use to remove ice are the least expensive possible for the road surface in place. That would actually strengthen the author's argument. That would mean that there's no possible way to free up money for rubberized asphalt by switching to a less expensive technique for removing ice. After all, they already use the least expensive technique. As written, we could hear this answer potentially weakening. If the techniques the city uses for ice removal aren't the least expensive, then we could say, "See, mayor? The suggestion to pave with rubberized asphalt is financially feasible. We just need to free up some money by switching to less expensive ice removal techniques."

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill
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