Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT147 S4 Q5 Explanation

Marisa: Existing zoning regulations

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsFlaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Marisa: Existing zoning regulations must be loosened; in some places the restrictions on development are now so prohibitive as to reduce undeveloped areas significantly.

Tyne: I disagree. Though it is true that the recent increase in the stringency of zoning regulations could be seen by developers as merely an activists' ploy to restrict development further, the value of better preserved by such regulatory protection.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
5.

Tyne's response to Marisa suggests that Tyne has misinterpreted which one of the following words

Answer choices

  1. Consistent3% picked this

    Both uses of regulations are referring to government deciding on which land can be used in what ways.

  2. Consistent10% picked this

    Both uses of development are referring to builders' constructing commercial, residential, or industrial structures on top of this land.

  3. Consistent9% picked this

    Marisa is using prohibitive to mean "strict, stringent, forbidding", and Tyne responds appropriately, agreeing to a recent increase in stringency.

  4. Correct77% picked this

    Why this is right

    When Marisa speaks about values, she's talking about the dollars and cents value of real estate. When Tyne speaks about value, he seems to be speaking about the ecological value of a natural, undisturbed area. The value of your 2012 Chevy (which has a dollars and cents value) vs. the (unquantifiable) value of being free to drive your 2012 Chevy into the mountains whenever you choose.

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

  5. Not the Disconnect0% picked this

    Marisa uses significantly to describe how much the property values have declined due to regulation. Tyne disagrees, saying that value can only be preserved by such regulation. The disagreement is more about using two different definitions of value than it is about using two different definitions of significantly.

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