Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S1 · Q1 Politician: The funding for the new

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

Politician: The funding for the new nationwide health-awareness campaign should come from an increase in taxes on cigarettes.

Politician's Position

Funding for the health-awareness campaign should come from cigarette taxes. Smoking causes many health problems, so it's reasonable that smokers bear the campaign's costs.

Smoker's Position

Eating high-fat foods also causes many health problems, but forcing high-fat-food buyers to fund the campaign would be "manifestly unreasonable." By analogy, the smoker implies the politician's proposal is also unreasonable.

Evaluate

Both speakers agree that smoking causes serious health problems. They disagree about whether the politician's proposal — taxing smokers to fund the campaign — is reasonable. The politician asserts it's reasonable; the smoker uses the high-fat-food analogy to deny that.

Goal

Find the answer that frames the dispute as: is the politician's proposal unreasonable?

1.

Which one of the following is the point at issue between the politician and the smoker?

  1. Correct

    whether the politician’s proposal for

    Why this is right

    This is the disagreement. The politician explicitly calls the proposal reasonable ("it is only reasonable that..."); the smoker uses the high-fat-food analogy to imply it's unreasonable. They disagree about whether the politician's proposal is unreasonable. Direct hit.

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

    81% picked this

  2. whether smokers are more aware

    Nobody Addresses

    Neither speaker discusses what smokers or high-fat-food eaters know about their habits' harms. The dispute is about the policy, not about awareness levels among consumers. Off-topic.

    0% picked this

  3. whether the effects of smoking

    Both Agree

    The smoker says high-fat-food consumption causes "as many serious health problems" as smoking — i.e., they're comparable. The politician doesn't deny this. The two don't disagree about which is the bigger health hazard.

    2% picked this

  4. whether it is unreasonable to

    Nobody Addresses

    This is a broader principle about people who don't benefit from programs sharing in the costs. Neither speaker takes a clear position on it. The politician's reasoning is "those who cause the problem should bear the cost," not about benefit-sharing. The smoker invokes an analogy, not a general principle about non-beneficiaries.

    10% picked this

  5. whether the proposed increase on

    Nobody Addresses

    Neither speaker discusses efficiency. The politician argues the tax is reasonable on cause-and-effect grounds; the smoker counters by analogy on fairness grounds. Whether the tax is an efficient means of financing is a separate question neither raises.

    7% 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