Editorial: The town would not

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

TopicsRole

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

Editorial: The town would not need to spend as much as it does on removing trash if all town residents sorted their household garbage. However, while telling residents that they must sort their garbage would get some of them to do so, many would resent the order and refuse to comply. The nonvoluntary system would and it does not engender nearly as much resentment.

What this question is testing

Role

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.

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

Answer choices

Too Strong9% picked this
It is a claim that the editorial is trying to show
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.
9%
Correct66% picked this
It is a fact granted by the editorial that lends some support to an alternative to the practice that
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.
66%
Opposite / Not Refuting Claim5% picked this
It is an example of a difficulty facing the claim that the editorial is
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%
Not a Premise17% picked this
It is a premise that the editorial's argument relies on in
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".
17%
Not The Conclusion3% picked this
It is the conclusion that the editorial's argument purports
The author's conclusion is that "the voluntary method is preferable".
3%

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