Economist: Although obviously cuts in personal

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

TopicsMain Conclusion

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

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

Economist: Although obviously cuts in personal income tax rates for the upper income brackets disproportionately benefit the wealthy, across-the-board cuts for all brackets tend to have a similar effect. Personal income tax rates are progressive (i.e., graduated), and if total revenue remains constant, then across-the-board cuts in these taxes require increasing the interest rates. This favors those who have money to lend, once again benefiting primarily the wealthy.

What this question is testing

Main Conclusion

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question

25.

Which one of the following statements most accurately expresses the main conclusion of

Answer choices

Background / Counterpoint7% picked this
Cuts in personal income tax rates for upper income brackets benefit the wealthy more than
This is the disclaimer part of the first sentence, not the main clause that gets supported. There is no support provided for this first claim; it’s just introduced with an obviously as though it’s self-justifying.
7%
Unmentioned4% picked this
Across-the-board cuts in personal income tax rates do not generate enough additional economic activity to prevent a
This was never said, so it can’t be the correct answer. This appeals to students because it sounds like a Necessary Assumption, which are invisible. We’re looking for an explicit conclusion.
4%
Premise / Subsidiary Conclusion6% picked this
It is the wealthy who are favored by generating a high amount of revenue
This is part of the evidence. You could probably call this a subsidiary conclusion, because some support for this is provided by the idea that the income tax code has graduated layers, so generating revenue on nonprogressive taxes is milder on rich people than would be raising revenue through progressive taxes. But the main conclusion is about across the board tax cuts.
6%
Premise / Last Claim Trap7% picked this
It is primarily the wealthy who benefit from increases in the budget deficit, which drive
This is just part of the evidence. It also should make students suspicious, if they are familiar with the Last Claim Trap on Main Conclusion (LSAT knows that students by default will just assume that the last idea in the paragraph is the conclusion).
7%
Correct77% picked this
Across-the-board personal income tax rate cuts generally benefit the wealthy more than
Why this is right
This echoes the meaning of the main clause of the first sentence.
Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
77%

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