Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT124 S2 Q16 Explanation

Editorialist: Some people propose that

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsWeaken

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Editorialist: Some people propose that, to raise revenues and encourage conservation, our country’s taxes on oil, gasoline, and coal should be increased. Such a tax increase, however, would do more harm than good. By raising energy costs, the tax increase would decrease our competitiveness with other countries. Many families would be unfairly energy, the tax increase would reduce the number of energy production jobs.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
16.

Each of the following, if true, would weaken the editorialist’s

Answer choices

  1. Weakens5% picked this

    The editorialist’s country’s budget deficit will decrease if the energy tax increase is implemented, thus

    This states an upside of increasing taxes on oil / gas / coal.

  2. Weakens8% picked this

    Higher gasoline prices tend to lead to a cleaner environment, because people do

    This states an upside of higher taxes on gas, as it will lead to higher prices, which lead to a cleaner environment through reduced non-essential activities.

  3. Correct77% picked this

    The proposed tax increase would be larger for some energy sources

    Why this is right

    This states that the tax would be larger for some energy sources than others, which doesn't directly address whether the overall tax increase does more harm or good, nor does it introduce a benefit to counterbalance the predicted harms.

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

  4. Weakens3% picked this

    Higher gasoline prices will encourage people to carpool, which will reduce

    This presents an upside of increased taxes on gas, since that will raise the price of gas, leading people to carpool, thereby reducing individual transportation costs.

  5. Weakens7% picked this

    The government would use the increase in tax revenue to create many more jobs than would be lost

    This presents an upside of the energy tax. The tax increase would create many more jobs than it would eliminate.

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