Spokesperson: Contrary to what some

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct86% picked this

   The amount of trash on the city's streets was not declining at the same rate or faster before the campaign began than

   Why this is right

   This has the lovable ruling-out "not" that we always slow down for on Necessary Assumption (the hallmark of a Defender answer). When we negate this, by removing the "not", does it weaken? Yes! If we say, "Yo, author, the amount of trash was declining at the same rate or even faster than it is now before the campaign" then it doesn't sound like the campaign made any difference in cleaning up this street trash. This answer, when negated, makes the author's explanation seem implausible. People refer to this type of answer as Effect without Cause. How could we credit the trash reduction we're seeing these days to this campaign, if the rate of trash reduction hasn't improved since the campaign began? (it may even have gotten worse!) The supposed Effect (reducing trash rate) was present even before the supposed Cause (the campaign) was present.

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

   86%
2. B

   Out of Scope: awareness of critics5% picked this

   Those who claim that the campaign has not been a rousing success are unaware of the degree of the decline in the amount

   This answer is targeting an inessential rhetorical flourish in the first sentence, which isn't part of the main clause and thus isn't part of the conclusion. The argument has nothing to do with what critics do or don't believe. The author is arguing that the campaign is a success based on the reduced amount of trash since the campaign began, and we're only meant to examine assumptions separating those two ideas.

   5%
3. C

   Too Strong: more than any ever1% picked this

   The campaign has been more successful in reducing the amount of trash on the city's streets than has any

   The author is only claiming that this campaign has been a rousing success. That doesn't mean she's claiming that it's the most rousing-est successful-est campaign of all time.

   1%
4. D

   Irrelevant: spokesperson0% picked this

   The spokesperson's group did not receive any special funding to support the planning or execution

   This answer deals with the character who is speaking this paragraph. There's never been an LSAT question for which we care what name is said before a paragraph. It doesn't make a difference whether a name introduces a paragraph or whether it's just a paragraph. We treat it exactly the same. So "the spokesperson" doesn't even exist in the argument. The argument is, CONC - campaign rousing success (why?) EVID - less trash now than when campaign started

   0%
5. E

   Too Strong: declined steadily7% picked this

   The amount of trash on the city's streets has declined steadily throughout the course

   The author is definitely assuming that the amount of trash on the streets has declined over the course of the campaign, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to call it a success. But the author doesn't need to assume any specific rate of decline. It doesn't matter if it declined steadily or logarithmically or unevenly. A campaign might have a lot of effect initially and then taper off. It might have little effect initially and then hit a tipping point where it makes a big difference. It might be slow and smooth. Who cares. None of those are crucial to deeming the campaign a success at reducing trash.

   7%