Logical Reasoning

PT130 · S3 · Q25 Economist: Although obviously cuts in personal

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

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.

Conclusion

Across the board tax cuts for all brackets tends to favor the wealthy.

Evidence

When you cut taxes across the board, you have to raise that missing revenue either through nonprogressive tax increases (which favor the wealthy) or by deficit spending, which leads to govt borrowing and higher interest rates, which favors the wealthy lending class.

Evaluation

It’s always good to remind yourself when you go into a Main Conclusion question that the Conclusion will usually be the first sentence, or it will be some form of rebuttal. Priming your brain for the possibility of a First Sentence Conclusion makes it easier to hear that first claim as the umbrella idea that gets unpacked/supported by all the subsequent claims. Our author spells out a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” (A or ~A) type argument. When you do across the board cuts, then you either raise nonprogressive taxes or you don’t, but each of those roads still leads back to the same finish line of favoring the wealthy.

Goal

We just need something that sounds like .

25.

Which one of the following statements most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the economist's argument?

  1. Cuts in personal income tax

    Background / Counterpoint

    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% picked this

  2. Across-the-board cuts in personal income

    Unmentioned

    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.

    3% picked this

  3. It is the wealthy who

    Premise / Subsidiary Conclusion

    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.

    5% picked this

  4. It is primarily the wealthy

    Premise / Last Claim Trap

    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).

    6% picked this

  5. Correct

    Across-the-board personal income tax rate

    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.

    79% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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