City leader: If our city adopts the new tourism plan, the amount of money that tourists spend here annually will increase by at least $2 billion, creating as many jobs as a new automobile manufacturing plant would.
Statements
Conditional (If)
adopt new → tourists would spend an tourism plan extra $2 billion annually
Causal (-ing)
The extra $2 billion being spent by tourists would create as many jobs as a new car plant.
Comparison / Pivot (but)
Adopting the tourism plan would cost less than convincing an auto manufacturer to build a car plant here.
Judgment
It would be reasonable for the city to spend what it would take to convince an auto manufacturer to build a plant here.
Evaluate
This is a weird variety of facts. We have a couple facts about the tourism plan a couple facts about building a car plant, so maybe the synthesis they want us to do has to do with comparing the two.
Whenever the last claim of the paragraph begins with a Pivot word (but, yet, however), that typically means that LSAT intends for us to reconcile that last idea with what came before it.
What should we make out of the fact that the tourism plan would cost less (than it would to entice an auto manufacturer to our city)?
Well we know that the tourism plan would create as many jobs as the new car plant would. So I guess we could say something like, .
Goal
Pick the most provable answer we can find. It might relate to the idea that the tourism plan would get us at least as many jobs but for less money than would getting an auto manufacturer to build a plant here.