Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S4 · Q19 Large-scale government projects designed

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

Large-scale government projects designed to benefit everyone—such as roads, schools, and bridges—usually benefit some small segments of society, initially at least, more than others.

Conclusion

Government by referendum (rather than by elected reps) tends to diminish the welfare of society.

Evidence

The more equally and widely political power is distributed among the citizenry, the less likely [large-scale government projects designed to benefit everyone] are to receive funding. This is because these projects usually benefit some small segments of society, at first at least, more than others.

Evaluate

This argument has a sort of Parallel Claim conclusion.

for example

Hot dogs are gross. Thus, some delicacies shouldn't be served at a wedding.

This would assume that hot dogs = delicacy gross = shouldn't serve at a wedding

Similarly, this argument is doing this: More widely distrib, less large scale political power govt projects

Thus, govt by diminishes welfare referendum, not reps of a society

Goal

So it's assuming that

And it's assuming that

19.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. Correct

    Large-scale government projects sometimes enhance

    Why this is right

    Two things are immediately attractive about this answer: - weak language (sometimes) - connecting things we talked about (large scale projects / welfare of society) Most appealing --- the conclusion is about whether something does / doesn't diminish the welfare of society. The author sounds worried that in a government by referendum, these big projects that initially benefit some small segment of society would be less likely to get government approval. The author thinks that if the public is voting on issues (i.e. referendum), then they'll shoot down these large-scale projects because only a small segment initially benefits from them. Since the author is sad that a government by referendum would lead to fewer of these projects getting funded, he must think that these projects would have done some good for the world had they been funded. Hence, he's assuming that these projects sometimes enhance society's welfare. If we negated this, it would make his argument sound silly. If large-scale projects never enhanced the welfare of a society, and that was the author's only evidence for why government by referendum would diminish society's welfare, then the author has no case anymore.

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

    59% picked this

  2. Large-scale projects are more likely

    Unknown Comparison: govt vs. private

    This answer is implicitly talking about a comparison between the government executing a large-scale project and a private organization doing so. The argument is only about government projects, so bringing in private-backed projects is totally out of scope.

    7% picked this

  3. Government by referendum actually undermines

    Too Strong: undermines democracy

    The author thinks that government by referendum will make it harder for large-scale government projects to get funded, so he thinks that society will be worse off, for not getting all those tasty roads, schools, and bridges. But he never talks about this doing anything to undermine the democratic process.

    10% picked this

  4. The primary purpose of an

    Too Strong / Scope: primary purpose

    The author is never addressing what the purpose of equal distribution of power is. He mentions an effect of more equal distribution of power (less likely for big government projects to be funded). But he's only concerned with what comes after equal distribution (its effects), not with what comes before equal distribution (its purpose).

    13% picked this

  5. Government by referendum is the

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: only way Relative vs. Absolute The author doesn't have to subscribe to this extreme idea: the only way to distribute power equally. The reference we had to distributing power isn't a yes / no type idea. It was a Volume Dial type idea: the more X, the less Y The author is only thinking that referendum results in power being more equally and widely distributed. He probably thinks that government by elected representatives also counts as "a way to distribute political power somewhat equally / widely". We wouldn't accuse him of thinking that government by referendum is the only route to equal political power or even that it actually achieves equal political power. We'd only accuse him of thinking that government by referendum is a route to more equally distributed power than government by representatives.

    11% 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