Logical Reasoning

PT147 · S4 · Q5 Marisa: Existing zoning regulations

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

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

Marisa's Conclusion

Zoning regulations must be loosened

Marisa's Evidence

In some places, the restrictions on development are so prohibitive that it's significantly reducing the property values of undeveloped areas.

Tyne's Conclusion

Zoning regulations don't need to be loosened.

Tyne's Evidence

The value of natural, undisturbed areas can only be better preserved by such regulatory protection.

Evaluate

What part of Tyne's response seemed weird or off-topic? To me it was the "natural, undisturbed" areas.

It sounds like Tyne is talking about regulations that prohibit developing in a wilderness refuge, or on endangered wetlands, or something like that.

Marisa seemed to just be saying, "you know that empty plot of land southwest of the Wal-Mart? It should have a pretty high property value, but because the zoning regulations are so strict, developers can't really build what they want or how they want there, and thus the value of that land is plummeting.

Goal

I would go looking for an answer that speaks to the difference between "undeveloped areas" (an empty lot that developers would like to put apartment buildings on but can't because of zoning regulations) and "natural, undisturbed areas" (precious parts of the natural ecosystem that we don't want to touch".

5.

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

  1. regulations

    Consistent

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

    3% picked this

  2. development

    Consistent

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

    11% picked this

  3. prohibitive

    Consistent

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

    9% picked this

  4. Correct

    values

    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.

    76% picked this

  5. significantly

    Not the Disconnect

    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.

    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.

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