Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S3 · Q24 Town councillor: The only reason

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

Town councillor: The only reason for the town to have ordinances restricting where skateboarding can be done would be to protect children from danger.

Conclusion

The town should not pass an ordinance prohibiting skateboarding in River Park.

Evidence

The only reason for the town to restrict skateboarding would be to protect children from danger. Park skateboarding is dangerous, but if banned, children will skateboard in the streets. Street skateboarding is more dangerous than park skateboarding.

Evaluate

The author is saying that since the whole point of the ordinance would be to protect children from danger, we should prohibit skating in the park because that will lead skaters to do something even more dangerous: skate in the streets.

Goal

Let's look for something like,

If the answer isn't set up as a rule that would lead us to conclude, "Shouldn't pass the ordinance", then we shouldn't give it more than a glance on a first pass.

24.

Which one of the following principles, if established, would provide the strongest support for the town councillor's argument?

  1. Ordinances that restrict the recreational

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This principle says: only restrict activities that pose a danger. "If the activity doesn't pose a danger to participants, then don't pass an ordinance restricting that activity." The second half is a great conclusion match for "don't pass an ordinance restricting skateboarding", but were we told that "skateboarding doesn't pose a danger to participants"? No we were explicitly told the opposite, that it's dangerous. Since the trigger of this rule doesn't apply to skateboarding, this rule is useless to us.

    1% picked this

  2. Since the town could be

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This principle would allow us to conclude that you should have a town ordinance restricting a dangerous activity (like skateboarding). We need a rule that would help us argue that you shouldn't.

    1% picked this

  3. Since safety in a recreational

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This rule would let us conclude that regulating a child's recreational activity should be left to parents. Indirectly, that points to the idea that we don't need to pass an ordinance prohibiting children from recreationally skating in River Park. But the conclusion is talking about an ordinance aimed specifically at children. The evidence is all about children, but the ordinance would ban everyone from skating, not just children. The trigger of this principle has nothing to do with the evidence. The evidence didn't mention that different skaters have different skill levels and thus different safety concerns. Instead, it said skating is undoubtedly dangerous (seemingly to all). In reality, this answer, if true, does provide good support for the conclusion, but it's not a great answer for supporting the argument, since it has nothing to do with the evidence / rationale presented.

    1% picked this

  4. If recreational activities constitute a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Skateboarding in the park is undoubtedly dangerous, so according to this rule, the town should have an ordinance prohibiting skating in the park. We're looking to support the opposite of that conclusion.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    Ordinances that seek to eliminate

    Why this is right

    "If enacting this ordinance against skating in the park would lead to dangers greater than the danger they seek to eliminate ... " It would. It would lead to skating in the streets, which is more dangerous than skating in the park. "... then you shouldn't enact an ordinance seeking to eliminate that danger". Great, this lets us conclude that we shouldn't enact an ordinance seeking to eliminate skating in the park.

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

    96% 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