Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S1 · Q25 Editorial: The town would not

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

Editorial: The town would not need to spend as much as it does on removing trash if all town residents sorted their household garbage.

Conclusion

The current system in which people voluntarily sort their garbage is preferred to one in which the city tells the residents they must sort their garbage.

Evidence

If people were told they must, many would comply but many would refuse. The city would barely save any money but it would engender a lot more resentment.

Evaluation

We're being asked about an idea that was not in the author's argument. The first claim was the reason why the city would consider doing the mandatory plan. Our author argues that the current voluntary plan is better, because the supposed benefit of the other system (cost savings) would be minimal, compared to its negative repercussion (fostering resentment).

Goal

This claim was the supposed benefit of the plan that the author is rejecting.

25.

The contention that the town would not have to spend as much as it does on removing trash if all town residents sorted their garbage plays which one of the following roles in the editorial's argument?

  1. It is a claim that

    Too Strong

    The author isn't saying that the supposed benefit is false, just that it won't be that big since many people will refuse the mandatory sorting.

    8% picked this

  2. Correct

    It is a fact granted

    Why this is right

    Some answers you just want to slap in the face. Oh, hi (B). No, we weren't talking about you. Is this a fact granted by the editorial? Sure, he says that "while some people would comply with the order", which implies that the city would save some money, via their changed behavior. Does this fact lend support to an alternative? This fact lends support to the mandatory sorting idea. Was mandatory sorting an alternative to a practice that the editorial thought was preferable? Yes, mandatory sorting was the alternative to voluntary sorting. The author's conclusion states his preference for the voluntary sorting option.

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

    68% picked this

  3. It is an example of

    Opposite / Not Refuting Claim

    The editorial is resisting the idea of doing mandatory sorting, rather than the current voluntary system. But there isn't really a claim that "mandatory sorting would be better than voluntary" that the author is refuting. Even if there were, the claim were being asked about would be support for that claim, not a difficulty facing that claim.

    5% picked this

  4. It is a premise that

    Not a Premise

    This isn't support for the author's conclusion, which is "Let's do the voluntary system". This is support for an alternative idea, which is "Let's do the mandatory system".

    16% picked this

  5. It is the conclusion that

    Not The Conclusion

    The author's conclusion is that "the voluntary method is preferable".

    3% 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