Logical Reasoning

PT141 · S4 · Q2 Residents of a coastal community

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

Residents of a coastal community are resisting the efforts of one family to build a large house on the family's land.

Conclusion (implied)

That family shouldn't build a large house on the iconic land depicted in that famous painting from the recently deceased local artist.

Intermediate Conclusion (hence)

Building a house there would damage the artistic and historic heritage of the community.

Evidence

The house would alter the pristine landscape.

Evaluate

On Strengthen + Principle, we primarily pre-phrase a linking idea that feels like "If Premise, Then Conclusion".

There are two moves in this argument we could prep a linking idea for:

1. If it alters the pristine landscape, then it damages the community's artistic and historic heritage.

2. If it damages the artistic and historic heritage, then (even though it's within the families legal rights to do it), they shouldn't do it.

Goal

Look for an answer that strengthens the idea that building this large house would be tainting our local artistic heritage and thus we shouldn't do it.

2.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning of the residents opposed to building the house?

  1. Every possible effort should be

    Irrelevant: preserve buildings

    There's no building here that residents are trying to preserve. They are trying to preserve an absence of building.

    7% picked this

  2. Communities that seek to preserve

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This principle would help us to conclude that the concerned residents should rally together money and buy this land from this family. That's not a match for either conclusion. We're trying to justify that "the family shouldn't build the house" or that "doing so would damage our local artistic / historic heritage".

    2% picked this

  3. Artists who choose to represent

    Unrelated to Goal

    This is a principle about what rights artists have. The artist in this argument is deceased. We're looking for a principle that would address what rights the local residents have to block construction of a house on private land.

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    The right to build on

    Why this is right

    This helps us build the case that family, even though they are well within their rights to build the house, should still be factoring in the artistic / historical interests of the community. It's a weak strengthener, because it really just affirms a necessary assumption. But it's the strongest thing offered. A minority of Strengthen + Principle questions have this feel of Weighing Tradeoffs. This argument is all about stopping the construction of the house, because the community's artistic and historic heritage would be damaged. But the argument supplied some counterpoints -- this house would be on the family's land and would not violate any town codes. So if we were objecting, "The family should go forward with the construction. After all, it's perfectly within their legal rights. Don't worry about those whiny residents", this principle would resist that line of thinking. It's saying, "No, no. You actually have to weigh these tradeoffs. Your right to build on your own property is constrained by (affected by) the local artistic / historical interests."

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

    78% picked this

  5. In historic communities, the building

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Nothing in the argument was concluding that building and zoning regulations should be changed, so we have no interest in a principle dictating what building and zoning regulations should / shouldn't do. The concept of preventing there from being "obstructed access to a historic site" is also out of scope. No one currently has access to this historic site. It is the family's land. It's only a question of whether the land will look (from afar) the way it does in an iconic local painting or whether it will look different once they build a large house.

    10% 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