Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S4 · Q23 The spokesperson proceeds by

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

Party spokesperson: The opposition party’s proposal to stimulate economic activity in the province by refunding $600 million in provincial taxes to taxpayers, who could be expected to spend the money, envisions an illusory benefit.

Main Conclusion

The proposal to stimulate economic activity by refunding $600 million envisions an illusory benefit.

Intermediate Conclusion (So)

Either the province's taxpayers or its workers, who are also province residents, will have the $600 million to spend, but there will be no resulting net increase in spending to stimulate the economy.

Evidence (since)

The budget has to be balanced, so there would either be new taxes needed (defeating the purpose of the refund) or the province would have to lay-off some of its workers (also bad for the economy).

Evaluate

If I were trying to describe how the author reached her conclusion, I would probably call this a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of argument (i.e. "Either way you slice it, it's still bad").

The author tries to show that a plan won't achieve its intended result by introducing considerations that make it seem like whether we go down Road A or Road B, we won't reach our destination.

Goal

We just want whichever answer choice we can match up to the specifics of this conversation.

23.

The spokesperson proceeds by

  1. reinterpreting a term that is

    Out of Scope: reinterpreted term

    There isn't really any opposing argument in the first place. There is just a proposal. Since the author is resisting its logic, we could maybe say the proposal is an opposing argument. But is there some term that's central to the opposing argument? If anything, maybe "stimulate"? "Benefit?" Either way, our author never reinterprets a term. (this answer sounds like the famous Equivocation flaw)

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    arguing that a predicted advantage

    Why this is right

    The author is saying that giving $600 million back to taxpayers, who will spend that money and stimulate the economy, is an "illusory" benefit, meaning "it won't actually turn out to be beneficial". Why won't it benefit the economy to have $600 million being spent by taxpayers? Well, because in order to pay for that $600 million, we'll have to offset it with disadvantageous measures (either taking $600 million back from people by making up new taxes or firing a bunch of government workers). The final idea that "there can be no resulting net increase" is a good match for "the predicted advantage will be offset by an accompanying disadvantage".

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

    86% picked this

  3. casting doubt on the motives

    Out of Scope: motives

    The author never mentions anything resembling an attack on the legitimacy of the motives of the people proposing to stimulate the economy. This answer sounds like the famous Ad Hominem flaw.

    2% picked this

  4. drawing a distinction between different

    Weak Match

    The author does mention different kinds of ways to raise revenue or cut expenses, so it feels like maybe she distinguished between different kinds of economic activity? But if we think about where "economic activity" appears in context, it's in the very first sentence .. the proposal to give a big tax refund is hoping to stimulate economic activity, in the form of taxpayers who get their refund check and then spend that money. The author doesn't draw a distinction between different ways the taxpayers might spend their refund check. To the extent that we could potentially call "raising taxes" or "laying off city employees" different kinds of economic activities, this answer still wouldn't do as good a job as the correct answer does of describing how the author arrives at her conclusion of "no resulting net increase". The correct answer says, "advantage is offset by disadvantage, thus no resulting net increase". This answer is saying, "these types of economic activities aren't the same, thus no resulting net increase".

    2% picked this

  5. seeking to show that the

    Bad Match

    The author never makes it seem like taxpayers wouldn't spend the money they're refunded. She accepts that part of the proposal but just thinks that the economic good caused by their spending would be annulled by the economic downside of raising new taxes or firing local workers.

    10% 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