Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S3 · Q4 To the editor: For generations

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

To the editor: For generations, magnificent racehorses have been bred in our area.

Conclusion

If you're in favor of developing good character in children, then you should vote against allowing the first race track to be built here.

Evidence

Gambling is wrong, and children raised in an atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing will not develop good character.

Evaluate

The fight with a conditional conclusion (If X, then Y), we have to argue that it's possible that X is true but Y is not. So in this case that means arguing that it's possible that we favor developing good character in children but still want to vote for this racetrack to be built here.

The author is going to say: but children raised in an atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing will not develop good character.

We'd have to argue that building a racetrack in our area will not suddenly turn it into .

We could say that even though there will be gambling, the kids won't see it. Or even if they see it, we'll talk to them about why we don't think it's a high character move to gamble. Or the kids will see all the hard work of the people who build the racetrack and work at the racetrack: those people certainly aren't trying to get something for nothing; they're doing hard work.

Goal

In the simplest sense, we should try to defend the idea of building the racetrack, while addressing L.E.'s concerns about how it would potentially corrupt our children.

4.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens L.E.'s argument?

  1. If good character is developed

    Untriggered Conditional

    This answer almost feels like the objection of, "We've already instilled good character in these children, and they will be able to continue to have good character even in a different environment where there's a local racetrack and local gambling." But we've never established the children already developed good character. And this author is precisely worried that once the racetrack is built, the local atmosphere will not allow for good character to develop early in children. In other words, this answer might work for saying that our local teens (who hopefully have already developed good character) will be fine, but it does nothing to reassure the author that future children in this area (who would grow up around gambling) will be fine.

    11% picked this

  2. Correct

    In other areas with gambling,

    Why this is right

    This directly attacks the author's assumption that "if we have gambling here, it will become an atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing, and thus the kids won't develop good character". This answer is saying, "Other places with gambling still have kids with good character". This helps us argue that "even if I favor developing good character in children over gambling on horses, I can still vote to allow this racetrack. I don't think the latter impedes the former." It's a pretty weak answer, because saying parents are able could mean something as paltry as "it's possible! there's at least one example!". But it definitely helps us to argue that we can build the racetrack, while addressing the author's concern about children's character.

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

    78% picked this

  3. In most areas with horse

    Strengthens, if anything

    This answer would help the author's case, by making it seem like once we have a racetrack, more and more of the local adult population will get into gambling (and so more and more parental role models will be sending the wrong message to our children).

    1% picked this

  4. Children whose parents gamble do

    Weak Impact

    This is somewhat decent, although it's very weakly worded. "People who are A are not necessarily B" is only really offering at-least-one data point. This answer is only saying that there is at least one child of a gambling parent who grew up to not be a gambler. But the reason this loses to (B) is that the author was not worried specifically that children would grow up to be gamblers; it was that children would grow up without developing good character. It also wasn't specifically about gambling parents as much as it was living in an area that has a gambling facility.

    9% picked this

  5. Where voters have had the

    No Impact

    This only tells us a statistical fact about whether voters have / haven't voted for horse racing. The argument's conclusion is about whether voters should have / shouldn't have voted for horse racing. This answer doesn't give us any new fact that could enter our debate over whether we should allow horse racing.

    1% 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