Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S4 · Q8 Principle: If the burden

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

Principle: If the burden of a proposed policy change would fall disproportionately on people with low incomes, that policy change should not be made.

Principle

Burden of proposed policy change policy change would → shouldn't fall disproportionately on be made people with low incomes

Application's Conclusion

The policy change of reintroducing rock salt as a road de-icing agent should not be made (should be halted).

Application's Evidence

? ? ?

Evaluate

In order to use this principle in order to conclude that the plan to reintroduce rock salt as a road de-icing agent should not happen, we have to establish the trigger.

Have we established that reintroducing rock salt as a de-icing agent is a policy change whose burden would fall disproportionately on people with low incomes?

Not at all. That's what we need our answer to do.

Goal

Pick whichever answer best convinces us that reintroducing rock salt as a de-icing agent will have a burden that falls disproportionately on people with lower incomes.

All we know about this policy change is - we used to do it a while ago - we stopped doing it because it accelerated corrosion of automobiles - cars are now better protected from salt's corrosive properties

Which one of the following, if true of Centerburgh, most justifies the above application of the principle?

Individuals with low incomes are
No Impact
If people with low incomes are more likely to use public transportation, then it doesn't seem like reintroducing rock salt as a de-icing agent will affect them one way or the other. Rich people with cars would potentially be burdened by the corrosive effects of the rock salt, whereas the poorer people would just keep hopping on the bus or the train, and who cares whether the bus you're riding is being corroded by rock salt? The city will just swap it out with a new bus, if it gets too corroded.
1% picked this
Road maintenance is primarily funded
Unclear Impact
This is very attractive, since it matches our trigger, "disproportionately burden low incomes". Do we know that reintroducing rock salt as a de-icing agent will be a change that results in higher road maintenance costs? No -- in fact salt is probably the cheaper option. We got rid of it because it was corroding stuff, but it may be cheaper than whatever alternative de-icing agent we've been using (we may have had to pay more for some substance with a more sophisticated chemistry that is good at breaking down ice but doesn't corrode cars). Even if we knew road maintenance costs were going up when we reintroduce rock salt, do we know if it would change local sales taxes? We don't. Road maintenance is primarily funded by local sales taxes, but we can't assume that reintroducing rock salt will boost the road maintenance budget so much that local sales taxes also go up.
23% picked this
Cars now cost twice what
Unclear Impact
It's hard to know whether the doubling in the cost of cars means that they are actually more expensive in today's dollars. If we stopped using salt in the 1980s and are now bringing it back, then it's an unremarkable claim to say that cars cost twice as much. That's just inflation. If we read this answer as "because cars have gotten so pricy, only wealthier people can afford them", then it would have the opposite effect of what we want. It would end up making this answer have the same logical effect as (A) ... the people with lower incomes can't afford these pricy new cars, so they take the bus instead. Thus, they're not really affected by the decision to start using salt again.
2% picked this
Correct
People with low incomes are
Why this is right
This points to a difference between higher / lower incomes: lower incomes = older cars higher incomes = newer cars Do we care whether people are driving older vs. newer cars? Yes, maybe. Older cars were corroded by rock salt. Newer cars are better protected from salt's corrosive properties. So reintroducing rock salt would be more likely to burden people with lower incomes, who have older cars that can be corroded by that salt.
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
73% picked this
Among drivers, those with low
Opposite
This points to a difference that has a relationship to the plan to reintroduce rock salt. But according to this answer, the rock salt would be more likely to affect those with higher incomes, since they more often use roads that will be treated with de-icing agents.
1% 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