City council member: Despite the

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: irrelevant / any19% picked this

   the issue of the mayor’s personal interest in the proposed legislation is irrelevant to any assessment of the mayor’s action

   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.

   19%
2. B

   Correct74% picked this

   the mayor’s course of action being personally advantageous is not inconsistent with the mayor’s action being

   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.

   74%
3. C

   Never a Flaw2% picked this

   the council member’s own absence of personal interest in the proposed legislation has

   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.

   2%
4. D

   Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match3% picked this

   that a person or a municipality has a need for something does not, in itself, establish that that person or that municipality

   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.

   3%
5. E

   Not an Objection3% picked this

   the possibility remains open that the mayor’s need to avoid loss of family revenue is as desperate as the city’s

   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%