Logical Reasoning

PT14 · S2 · Q20 Railroad spokesperson: Of course it is

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

Railroad spokesperson: Of course it is a difficult task to maintain quality of service at the same time that the amount of subsidy the taxpayers give the railroad network is reduced.

Conclusion (this leads to conclusion)

Our quality of service has been satisfactory.

Evidence

Over recent years, the number of passengers has increased in spite of subsidy reductions.

Evaluate

We could readily anticipate a Linking assumption by just saying an "If Premise, then Conclusion" idea out loud. The author is assuming,

.

But we might suspect that the answer will be more challenging than that, causing us to shift into Objection mode:

Given that ... the number of passengers has increased How could we still argue that ... the quality of service has not been satisfactory?

Maybe these passengers have no choice. This railroad is their only feasible option for commuting. Even though the quality of service sucks, they still have to use it.

Maybe the number of passengers is growing not because people hear this is a great train with great service, but rather because some other option for commuting has gone out of business (sending all of those former customers over to this railroad).

Maybe there's been a huge growth in population, so that even though there's a greater number of riders, a smaller percentage of locals is willing to ride the train these days.

Goal

Look for an answer linking "more passengers" to "satisfactory quality of service". Or look for an answer defending against a potential objection.

If we see an answer written in that lovable "ruling-out not" style, we should negate it and see if the negation would weaken the argument (if so, then it's a correct answer).

20.

The spokesperson’s argument is based on which one of the following assumptions?

  1. Taxpayers do not wish to

    Out of Scope: wishes of taxpayers

    This argument is only about trying to ascertain whether the quality of service has been okay, and whether an increase in number of passengers is a sign that quality of service has been okay. The author didn't discuss, and doesn't need to commit to any position, on whether taxpayers wish to have their taxes raised. If we negated this and said, "Hey, author -- taxpayers do wish to have their taxes raised to subsidize the railroads", that wouldn't be any sort of objection that lets us argue "quality of service has not been satisfactory".

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    Some people refuse to travel

    Why this is right

    This answer is written in lovably weak "some" language. That means that if we negate it, we'll get a powerful idea that might be a strong objection. It currently says, "There's at least one person who would refuse to travel by train if they were dissatisfied with the quality of service". If we negate (i.e. contradict) that answer, it will say, "There are zero people who would refuse to travel by train if they were dissatisfied with the quality of service". So the negation is saying, "There is no person who would stop traveling by train just because they were dissatisfied by the quality of service." Does that weaken? Sure! The author thinks that the number of passengers riding is an indication of quality of service. But, according to this negation, passengers would continue to travel by train even if they were dissatisfied with the quality of service. Thus, pointing to whether the number of passengers has gone down, gone up, or held steady is irrelevant to ascertaining whether there is satisfactory quality of service. Any time we demonstrate that the author's lone premise is essentially irrelevant to the conclusion being drawn on its behalf, we've badly weakened the argument. If a lawyer hasn't presented any relevant evidence, then she has no case! If the negation weakens, then it's the correct answer.

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

    73% picked this

  3. The quality of service on

    Too Strong: must have improved

    This author is trying to convince us that we have succeeded in the difficult task of maintaining quality of service, in spite of reduced subsidies. She is only trying to prove that we still have satisfactory service. She doesn't need to believe our service has improved. If we negate this and say, "Yo, author -- the quality has not improved since the subsidy reductions", that wouldn't hurt the argument at all. She would just say, "I never said it had improved. Sure there are more passengers than before, but I never said that's an indication that quality had improved. I just said that's an indication that quality is satisfactory."

    11% picked this

  4. It is impossible to reduce

    Too Strong: impossible Opposite

    The author seems to be making the opposite argument. She acknowledges that it's difficult to reduce subsidies while maintaining quality, but she doesn't say it's impossible. And her argument is suggesting that this railroad has managed to maintain quality in spite of reduced subsidies.

    5% picked this

  5. The increase in the number

    Out of Scope: revenue offset subsidy

    The author isn't making any sort of dollars and cents argument that a higher amount of revenue will now replace the money we used to get from higher subsidies. If we negated this and said, "Sorry, author -- the new revenue isn't going to fully make up for the subsidy reductions", that wouldn't weaken at all. She would say, "I never said it would. All I'm saying is that our quality of service has evidently been satisfactory."

    8% 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