Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S3 · Q14 City council member: Despite the

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

City council member: Despite the city's desperate need to exploit any available source of revenue, the mayor has repeatedly blocked council members' attempts to pass legislation imposing real estate development fees.

Conclusion (it is clear that = opinion)

By blocking council's attempts to pass legislation that would impose real estate development fees, the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests.

Intermediate Conclusion (thus)

The mayor has a strong financial interest in the matter of real estate development fees.

Evidence

The mayor's family is heavily involved in real estate development.

Evaluate

Since two reasoning moves are made, we can potentially scrutinize each of them.

Given that ... the mayor's family is involved in real estate development,

Should we accept that ... the mayor has a strong financial interest in the matter of real estate development fees?

No, not necessarily. It sounds like members of the mayor's family have a strong financial interest in these fees, but we have no idea whether the mayor benefits from her family members' real estate financials. Do they share money with her? Are they even in touch with her? If she's estranged from the family, the fact that they are involved in real estate doesn't really affect her.

Given that ... the mayor has a strong financial interest in the matter of real estate development fees,

Should we accept that ... by blocking this bill the mayor is sacrificing city interests to financial interests?

No, blocking the bill might still be in the city's financial interests. After all the mayor cites figures that show these fees would cause a net loss of revenue for the city.

So isn't blocking the bill in the city's financial interests?

Goal

Let's look for an answer saying,

Or look for an answer saying,

14.

The reasoning in the city council member's argument is flawed because

  1. the issue of the mayor’s

    Too Strong: irrelevant / any

    It would be too harsh for us to say that the mayor's personal interest is irrelevant to any assessment of the mayor's action. Let's say we were trying to assess whether the mayor would benefit from this legislation being passed: wouldn't the mayor's personal interest in the proposed legislation be relevant to that assessment? If the President were about to pass a bill that seemed to credibly benefit him personally, and the press were to ask about it, could the Press Secretary really just be like, "C'mon -- the President's personal interest in the bill is completely irrelevant to any assessment of why he's signing this bill"? No. If there is a credible suspicion that selfish motives are behind something, then it's fair to ask questions. Our author isn't allowed to already be 100% sure that the mayor is sacrificing city interests to personal interests, but she's not wrong to consider the mayor's personal interests as possibly relevant to an assessment of the mayor's action.

    20% picked this

  2. Correct

    the mayor’s course of action

    Why this is right

    Saying that "X is not inconsistent with Y" is an obnoxious, lawyerly way of saying "X and Y could both be true". Can we object to this argument by saying, "It's possible that blocking this real estate development fee legislation is both personally advantageous (since the mayor's family will probably benefit) and also advantageous for the city (since the mayor's figures show that the fees would result in a revenue in a net revenue loss for the city." If we were looking for an answer saying, "Yo -- the author cited figures that show that blocking these fees is in the city's financial interests", then this is our answer. It's just expressed in a silly LSAT way, of course.

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

    73% picked this

  3. the council member’s own absence

    Never a Flaw

    There has never been (and probably never will be) any LSAT question that cared about the Name that sometimes appears before a paragraph. If a stimulus looked like this ... The number of students coming to school sick has gone down since we established the "Wash Your Hands" campaign. Thus, the campaign has been a success. vs. like this .... Principal: The number of students coming to school sick has gone down since we established the "Wash Your Hands" campaign. Thus, the campaign has been a success. ... we wouldn't read or think of them any differently. We don't care whether it's a principal or a janitor or a hallway monitor that is saying this argument. We would analyze the ideas in the argument, only. We never think about the person who's saying the argument. The author does not need to establish that he has no personal interest in the matter. Whether he does or doesn't, he's still allowed to call out the mayor for sacrificing city interests to personal interests.

    1% picked this

  4. that a person or a

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    The structure of this answer is, that X is true does not, in itself, establish that Y is true so we would want X to match the evidence and Y to match the conclusion. Did the evidence talk about a person or municipality having a need for something? Nope. That's reason enough to eliminate. Did the conclusion talk about a person or municipality having the right to something? Also no.

    2% picked this

  5. the possibility remains open that

    Not an Objection

    We can't object by saying, "The mayor's family needs this financial win more than the city does", because we would just be agreeing with the author's conclusion that the mayor is sacrificing city financial interest for personal financial interest. If the argument had been, "The mayor is sacrificing city financial interest for personal financial interest. Thus, the mayor's action is wrong", then we could object by saying something like "the family needs it more than the city".

    3% 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