Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S4 · Q24 Party spokesperson: The opposition party's

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.

Conclusion (So)

There can be no resulting net increase in spending to stimulate the province's economy.

Intermediate Conclusion

Let's say we refund $600 million in taxes to taxpayers --

We would then have to either 1. raise new taxes (defeating the purpose of the refund) or 2. government workers would have to be fired

You're either putting $600 million in the hands of taxpayers or keeping $600 million in the pockets of government workers who would otherwise need to be fired.

Evidence (since)

The province's budget must be balanced.

Evaluate

Given that .. it's $600 million, either in the hands of refunded taxpayers or not-fired government workers.

How could we say that .. there could be a net increase in spending to stimulate the economy?

This is a question where outside knowledge can help. When politicians debate whether to give tax breaks to wealthy people/corporations vs. give money back to lower-earning taxpayers, it's often remarked that the wealthy companies and people are more likely to save that money, whereas the less wealthy people need the money for so many things that they're more likely to spend any refund money they receive.

Goal

Hard to predict where this is going, so we would just think, we need an answer that plays along with the constraints the author's premises laid out, but gives us a way to say that there could be a net increase in spending / stimulating.

24.

The conclusion about whether there would be a resulting net increase in spending would not follow if the

  1. taxpayers of the province would

    Strengthens

    This goes in the opposite direction of our goal. We want to argue that this $600 million tax refund would create a net increase in stimulating the province's economy. This is saying half the money would be spent outside the province.

    9% picked this

  2. taxpayers of the province would

    No Impact: partial payments

    We don't care if it's partial payments or a lump sum. That distinction doesn't give us a way to argue that the $600 million can result in a net increase in spending.

    6% picked this

  3. province could assess new taxes

    No Impact: angering

    This argument is only about whether there's a net increase in spending. It doesn't care about potential anger, unless we know that answer is going to affect spending. This answer is also about how they would go about raising taxes after issuing the refund, but that's not going to help us. We need a storyline where they give out tax refund and somehow that $600 million increases net spending in the province.

    3% picked this

  4. province could, instead of refunding

    Unrelated to Goal

    We're not interested in any counterfactuals where we don't refund the money. We could bail from this answer as soon as we see "instead of refunding the money", because that makes it instantly irrelevant to our conclusion. This is a very popular answer, so it suggests that many people were not super clear on the relationship of the conclusion in the final sentence to the original rebuttal that set the stage for this whole conversation. If you read the conclusion as the author merely saying, "we'll never have a net increase in spending to stimulate the economy", then this answer would definitely seem to suggest a scenario in which the economy is getting stimulated. But the last sentence is saying "there can be no net increase in spending to stimulate the economy [resulting from this proposed $600 million refund. It envisions an illusory benefit]." The keyword that reminds you the final conclusion is specifically about the $600 million tax refund is that the conclusion doesn't say, there can be no net increase in spending but instead says there can be no resulting net increase in spending

    41% picked this

  5. Correct

    province could keep its workers

    Why this is right

    This gives us a way to argue that we could refund $600 million and have a net increase in local spending. The author was worried that in order to balance the books, the government would have to lay off $600 million worth of city employee salaries. This answer is saying that instead, the government could balance the books by improving employee efficiency, saving them $600 million compared to what they usually spend. This jump in efficiency isn't being triggered by the refund or anything, but if it's possible to do, then the author is wrong to arrive at her Intermediate Conclusion. She thinks that "since we have to balance the budget, they'll have to raise taxes or lay-off city employees". But this argument points out a third possibility -- "maybe you could balance books by finding ways to save that money elsewhere".

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

    42% 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