Logical Reasoning

PT111 · S3 · Q19 Columnist: A recent study suggests

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

Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one’s risk of lung cancer.

Conclusion (So)

The government shouldn't levy special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles (just because of their apparent danger).

Evidence

A recent study showed some apparent danger of living with a parrot (increased risk of lung cancer), but no one thinks the government should impose financial impediments on owning parrots because of that.

Evaluate

The author's argument makes this sort of Linking move:

no one would think the govt should the govt should impose → not impose a tax financial impediments on apparent on apparent danger X dangers A/B/C/D

If we were trying to object to this argument, we would probably point out salient differences between the recreational gear in the conclusion vs. the housepet in the evidence.

We could point out salient differences as well in terms of how much risk of apparent danger there is with a parrot vs. guns/skis/parachutes/motorcycles.

Goal

This is a very unfamiliar question stem. 4 of these answers are "logically consistent". What does that mean? They strengthen? They match?

Nope. Logically consistent means "don't contradict". Logically inconsistent (our correct answer) means "they contradict".

Consider this principle: (A) If your sister gives you a piece of gum, you should say thank you.

Was that logically consistent with the author's argument about taxes? Sure! It has nothing to do with his argument, so it couldn't possibly be contradicting it.

For an argument to contradict a principle, we want a principle such that the argument matches the Trigger but doesn't match the Outcome.

For example: (A) If several different things each present some apparent danger, then some should be taxed by the government and others should not.

The trigger matches the argument, but the outcome does not.

19.

Each of the following principles is logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion EXCEPT:

  1. The government should fund education

    Consistent

    We can only contradict our author's conclusion by saying the government should tax / impose financial impediments on something. This is talking about what the government should support with money.

    14% picked this

  2. The government should not tax

    Consistent

    We can only contradict our author's conclusion by saying the government should tax / impose financial impediments on something. This is talking about the government not-taxing something.

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    The government should create financial

    Why this is right

    This argument was saying that the government shouldn't create financial disincentives (such as taxes) on gear related to hunting, skiing, parachuting, or motorcycling, just because of their apparent danger. This answer says something pretty close to the opposite of that. Thus, it is logically inconsistent with the argument.

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

    69% picked this

  4. The government should not create

    Consistent

    We can only contradict our author's conclusion by saying the government should tax / impose financial impediments on something. This is talking about the government not-imposing financial disincentives on something.

    5% picked this

  5. The government would be justified

    Bad Premise Match

    This is worth reading, since it is saying the government should tax something, but the category here doesn't match the argument as well as the category in (C). (C) said we should tax "activities deemed dangerous", which seems to fairly apply to hunting, skiing, parachuting, and motorcycling. (E) is saying we should tax everyone "in order to raise money for the needy", which isn't connected in any way to hunting, skiing, parachuting, and motorcycling.

    9% 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