Logical Reasoning

PT133 · S3 · Q25 Political philosopher: A just system

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

Political philosopher: A just system of taxation would require each person's contribution to correspond directly to the amount the society as a whole contributes to serve that person's interests.

Conclusion

Each person should be taxed solely in proportion to their income.

Evidence

A just system of taxation would require each person to be taxed in proportion how much society serves that person's interests. The most objective way to determine how well society has served someone is wealth.

Evaluation

What is the reasoning flaw here? The author tries to establish that figuring out taxation by wealth is the most objective way of figuring out how much society as benefited each person, and then concludes that we should be taxed solely according to income.

2 thoughts: - is "wealth" the same as "income"? (wealth includes your assets, like houses and cars, whereas income just refers to how much money you receive each month or year) - is the "most objective" way automatically the best way? Should we "solely" go off the most objective way? Could we combine 'wealth/income' with other metrics?

Goal

We need an argument that lays out a way to measure something (tax should be based on how much society gives you). Then we should hear about the most ____ way of measuring that (maybe "objective", maybe something similar but different). Then we should get a conclusion that says that we should solely rely on that ____ way, although there will probably be a concept shift (like we had with wealth vs. income)

Premise 1: To determine X, we should consider Y. Premise 2: The best / most objective way to determine Y is Z. Conclusion: Determining X should be solely based on *Z*.

25.

The flawed reasoning in the political philosopher's argument is most similar to that in which one of the following?

Correct
Cars should be taxed in
Why this is right
It's unusual for a correct answer to re-use a similar topic, like taxation in this case. Premise 1: Tax should be determined by danger. Premise 2: Most reliable way to determine danger is car's top speed. Conclusion: Tax should be based solely on car's acceleration.
Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
78% picked this
People should be granted autonomy
Weak Premise Match
Premise 1: Autonomy should be determined by maturity. Premise 2: This test is a way to objectively measure maturity. This is already falling off track, since the original was saying that wealth was the most objective way, and this is just saying it's an objective way. The conclusion should sound like, "Autonomy should be determined solely by this test". Instead, the CONCLUSION makes a weirdly specific claim that isn't proportional. It just has a cut-off level (above this level, you get autonomy ... below, you don't).
5% picked this
Everyone should pay taxes solely
Trap
Bad Conclusion Match Bad Premise Match Topic Trap This topic and wording is so similar to the original, it screams "trap answer". But in the original, the "just system" line was a premise. Here, it's the conclusion. The "solely proportional" was the conclusion of the original. Here, it's a premise. If we weren't already convinced it was a poor match, the 2nd premise contains no language like "this metric is the most objective"
8% picked this
Individuals who confer large material
Bad Premise Match Bad Conclusion Match
The first claim sounds a bit like "we should determine who receives high incomes based on how much they confer large material benefits upon society". But the second claim doesn't sound like "the most objective way to determine whether they confer large material benefits is ____ ". And the conclusion doesn't sound like, "Thus how much high income someone gets should be solely proportional to _____ ".
5% picked this
Justice requires that health care
Missing 2nd Premise
This only has one premise, so it's not going to match the original. The 2nd premise needs to tell us the best / most objective way to measure each person's need, if that's the way that health care should be determined.
4% 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