Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT149 S1 Q3 Explanation

Enrique: The city's transit authority

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

TopicsAgree/Disagree

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

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

Enrique: The city’s transit authority does not have enough money to operate for the next twelve months without cutting service or increasing fares, and the federal government has so far failed to provide additional funding. Nonetheless, the transit authority should continue operating without service cuts or fare increases until it has will be willing to provide funding to save the authority.

Cynthia: If the transit authority tries that maneuver, the federal government will probably just let the authority go out of business. The allowing that to happen.

What this question is testing

Agree/Disagree

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence 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
3.

The dialogue most strongly supports the claim that Enrique and Cynthia disagree

Answer choices

  1. Correct92% picked this

    the transit authority should continue operating without cutting service or increasing fares until it has

    Why this is right

    This deals with Claim 3, which was one of the two claims we could tell Cynthia disagreed with. We can infer this answer choice from Enrique's statements, because he explicitly says it in his 2nd sentence. We can infer the disagree position from Cynthia. She believes the transit authority should not try this plan of operating w/o cutting service or raising fares until it runs out of money. She says that the transit authority cannot risk the potential backfire of that plan, which would be running out of money and having the federal government say, "Well --- I guess you're not a sustainable venture. We're going to just let you go out of business."

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

  2. Unsupported Both1% picked this

    the federal government should provide additional funding to the

    We can't support the Agree or Disagree position here. Enrique and Cynthia both only spoke to would / wouldn't the federal government provide additional funding if the transit authority ran out of money. Neither of them spoke to should / shouldn't the federal government kick in some money.

  3. Unsupported Both0% picked this

    it would be better for the transit authority to cut services than it would be

    We couldn't infer this position or the disagree version of this position from either paragraph, because neither person discusses the relative merits of "cutting services while maintaining fares" vs. "maintaining services while increasing fares".

  4. Unsupported Agree Position5% picked this

    the federal government is willing to provide additional funding to the

    Technically, we probably can't even infer the disagree position, but since Enrique said that "the feds so far have failed to provide additional funding", we could somewhat support the claim that "the feds are not willing to provide additional funding to the transit authority now". But we certainly can't derive the Agree position from Cynthia. She doesn't say anything that would support the claim that "the feds are willing to provide additional funding right now".

  5. Unsupported Agree Position1% picked this

    the transit authority can afford to operate for the next twelve months without cutting service even if it

    This relates to Enrique's claim 1, which we know Cynthia didn't comment on, so this can't be the answer. But there's no way we could infer this claim from either person's statements: "they don't cut services + they don't receive funding, but they CAN afford to operate for the next 12 months"

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