Logical Reasoning

PT11 · S2 · Q21 A recent report on an environmental

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

A recent report on an environmental improvement program was criticized for focusing solely on pragmatic solutions to the large number of significant problems that plague the program instead of seriously trying to produce a coherent vision for the future of the program.

Critics' View

This report was flawed because it didn't produce a coherent vision for the future of the program.

Report's Author's Response

In order to do anything at all, the program needed continued government funding, and to get such funding, the program first needed to regain a reputation for competence. (So that's why we focused solely on pragmatic solutions)

Evaluate

Since we're trying to logically counter the report's authors, we want to defend the idea that , while responding to the idea that .

We might be able to combine those ideas, like .

Goal

Let's find an answer that challenges the strategy of focusing solely on pragmatic solutions, or allows us to argue that there should have been a vision for the future.

21.

Which one of the following, if true, would best serve the critics of the report in their attempt to undermine the position taken by the report’s authors?

  1. The government does not actually

    Too Weak: not 100%

    Even if the government only provides 90% of the program's funding, the program would still be reliant on government funding, so this is not countering the authors' claim that they need continued government funding.

    9% picked this

  2. Correct

    The program will continue to

    Why this is right

    This allows us to say, "See? You should have laid out a coherent vision for the future. Otherwise you can't solve your problems, and so you can't regain your reputation for competence, and so you can't get your continued funding." In a sense, the author was defending the report like, "Look, FIRST we'll fix these problems. THEN, we'll worry about the plan for the future." And this answer is saying, "Nope, wrong order. You need the plan for the future in order to solve the problems."

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

    71% picked this

  3. The program had a coherent

    Mixed Impact

    The author could use this to say, "Visions for the future are pointless. We had one before and it was impossible to sustain." And we could use it to say, "We need a new vision, because the old one isn't realistic." In either case, it wouldn't be responding to the author's objection that the immediate priorities are funding / reputation for competence.

    7% picked this

  4. The government has threatened to

    No Impact

    The government's threat to cut off funding might reinforce the necessity of appearing competent, but it doesn't undermine the authors' position about focusing on pragmatic solutions for funding.

    7% picked this

  5. The program has acquired a

    Opposite (if anything)

    If the program has an undeserved bad reputation, this could support the authors in suggesting that improving competence reputation can effectively address a critical barrier to funding, rather than undermine the position taken by the authors.

    6% 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