Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S4 · Q2 Economist: To the extent that homelessness

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

Economist: To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing, it should not be assumed that the profit motive is at fault.

Conclusion

Profit motive is not at fault for the lack of available housing that leads to homelessness.

Evidence

In general, if the market allows private investors to make a profit, housing will be provided. It's unrealistic to expect investors to take risks if they're not going to get benefit in return.

Evaluate

The easiest way to locate the conclusion here is two-fold: - any time we're reading an argument on Role or Main Conclusion, we should be priming our brain with a reminder that most of these conclusions are an opinionated first sentence or a rebuttal opinion.

The word “should” in the first sentence shows the opinion.

We verify that the first option is the Conclusion by using the Support Test: why should we believe that profit motive isn't to blame for the lack of affordable housing?

Because private investors would provide housing if the market allowed them to make a profit doing so, and it's unrealistic (unfair) to expect them to take risks with their property unless they get some benefit in return.

The question stem is asking us for the role of the intro to the first sentence, which was the Main Conclusion. What is the role of the into clause? It sounds like it qualifies the conclusion. It allows for the idea that profit motive might be at fault for other aspects of homelessness, but wants to say that profit motive isn't to blame for lack of affordable housing.

Goal

Look for something like, .

2.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the economist's argument by the phrase "To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing"?

  1. Correct

    It limits the application of

    Why this is right

    Saying “to the extent that ____ “ definitely sounds like you're limiting the application of something. “To the extent that Gilly's Games Guide will fully prep you for the Games section, it's a great LSAT resource, but it won't help much with LR or RC.” I limited the application of GGG's usefulness to the games section. “You can't blame the profit motive for homelessness” would apply the argument to the whole problem of homelessness. “To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing, you can't blame the profit motive” limits the argument to just the part of homelessness that relates to lack of affordable housing.

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

    76% picked this

  2. It suggests that the primary

    Too Strong: primary

    This expression isn't ranking where lack of available housing lands on the Top 5 causes of homelessness. The author might say, “To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing, we shouldn't blame the profit motive. To the extent that homelessness arises out of medical bankruptcies caused by health insurance policies that don't cover preexisting conditions, the profit motive should be blamed.” We would have no idea from those statements whether the author thinks lack of affordable housing or medical bankruptcies are a bigger cause of homelessness.

    8% picked this

  3. It is offered as evidence

    Wrong Role

    The evidence is the 2nd and 3rd sentences. The phrase we're being asked about isn't even a grammatically complete idea; it's a phrase, not an independent clause. It's impossible for a phrase to be evidence. Evidence is a factual or opinionated claim, both of which are complete ideas (subject + verb). You can't support or hurt any argument by saying a phrase. These are phrases: Since 1997 ... … to the liquor store … with nothing but a wheelbarrow to his name never one to reject a game of tetherball, Along with Easter, … We don't who they're referring to or what that thing did, because there's no subject or verb.

    6% picked this

  4. It expresses the conclusion to

    Wrong Role

    The conclusion is the main clause of the 1st sentence. The phrase we're being asked about isn't even a grammatically complete idea; it's a modifier, not an independent clause. It's impossible for a phrase to be a conclusion. A conclusion has to actually be a claim, i.e. a complete idea (subject + verb). You can't conclude a phrase or support a phrase. You can't conclude, "Therefore, to the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing." because it's not even a complete sentence.

    9% picked this

  5. It suggests a possible solution

    Out of Scope: solution

    There isn't a solution offered to the problem of homelessness. We could obviously look at the words they're pointing us to and invest our own solution, “Maybe we could solve homelessness by making more affordable housing!”, but the author didn't do that. The author's argument isn't trying to solve the problem; it's just trying to acquit the profit motive for being blamed for one part of the problem.

    1% 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