Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S1 · Q26 Rapid population growth can be

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

Rapid population growth can be disastrous for a small city.

Conclusion

When a city experiences a sudden influx of people, it can be disastrous.

Evidence

The rapid population growth overwhelms city services, such as getting utilities set up or obtaining permits, and city budgets typically don't allow for the immediate hiring of new staff.

Additionally, there is a standard of having at least one municipal employee for every hundred residents, which may be disrupted by the influx.

Evaluate

This is a "Strengthen" question aiming to reinforce the conclusion that rapid population growth can be disastrous for cities. Possible strengthening points could involve underscoring the difficulties in managing growth, like budget constraints, resource demands, or delays in receiving new revenue from residents.

Goal

Identify an answer that amplifies the negative consequences of rapid population growth on city services or reinforces the notion that such growth is hard to manage within existing city budgets.

26.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

  1. During budget shortages, small cities

    Weakens (if anything)

    This discusses cities prioritizing basic municipal services during budget shortages, suggesting that during an influx of new residents, the city would cut back on less essential services and make sure they had the municipal services (that would be needed to absorb these new residents). That would only weaken the claim of disaster due to population influx.

    17% picked this

  2. New residents of any city

    Unclear Impact

    This suggests new residents bring new ideas on city management. Its impact is unclear without knowing if these ideas are beneficial or detrimental to city operations during a population surge.

    1% picked this

  3. Some large cities can absorb

    Irrelevant Comparison

    This references large cities, which are not the focus of the argument concerning small cities facing rapid growth, and doesn't provide insight into the consequences of such growth.

    9% picked this

  4. A low unemployment rate is

    No Impact

    This states that low unemployment is a reason for moving to the city but doesn't address the effects of increased population or directly influence the argument about city service overloads. We might even argue that this weakens, by making it seem like the city is in pretty good shape, at the time it gets a surge of residents (it would be much harder to deal with new residents if city services were already stretched thin due to lots of unemployed people).

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    New residents of most small

    Why this is right

    This states that new residents won't start paying city taxes for at least a year, meaning the city's budget won't immediately benefit from new revenue to hire additional staff. It reinforces the idea that the city will have to allocate resources to this influx of residents, but won't have any new resources in its budget for at least a year.

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

    71% 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