Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S3 · Q16 The tax bill passed 2 years ago

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

The tax bill passed 2 years ago provides substantial incentives for businesses that move to this area and hire 50 or more employees.

Conclusion (clearly)

The tax bill has already created many jobs in this area.

Evidence

It provided substantial incentives for businesses that move to this area and hire 50 or more employees.

Last year, Plastonica qualified for the incentives by opening a new plastics factory that hired 75 employees.

Evaluate

It doesn't seem like this is testing a Linking idea, because that would be .

We should probably go into debate mode: Given that .. Plastonica qualified for the bill's incentives by opening a new plastics factory that hired 75 employees,

How could we argue that ... The bill has not created many jobs in this area.

Maybe we could say Plastonica's jobs aren't really in this area? Maybe we could say the bill wasn't the reason that Plastonica opened that factory / it would have done so anyway?

We could potentially see this argument in our Explain Curious Fact mindset, with the curious fact being and the author's causal assumption being, .

Thus, the author is assuming that Plastonica did not open the new factory "entirely for reason X (not the incentive)". And she has to assume bare minimums when it comes to the plausibility of her explanation, such as .

Goal

Look for an answer assuring us that these 75 hired employees represent "jobs in this area", or an answer ruling out the possibility that .

16.

The argument's reasoning depends on which one of the following assumptions?

  1. If Plastonica had not opened

    Out of Scope: opening elsewhere

    There's no reason the author has to believe that this city was the only possible place Plastonica would build a factory. It wouldn't hurt the argument at all to negate this and get, "Plastonica might have opened a plastics factory elsewhere, if they hadn't opened one in the area". Let's say that Plastonica was considering this area or Shelbyville. Does that hurt the argument? No. In fact the author can argue that what lured them away from Shelbyville was the bill and its incentives, thus proving her point that the bill has already created many jobs.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    Plastonica would not have opened

    Why this is right

    This is definitely in the author's head, if they think that "the bill created these jobs". By saying that, we're implying that the bill had a meaningful impact. These jobs wouldn't have existed without the bill. If we negate this, it says, "Plastonica would have opened the plastics factory in the area even if there weren't any incentives". That would badly weaken the argument. We can't give the bill credit for creating these jobs if they would have existed anyway.

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

    80% picked this

  3. Most critics of the tax

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: most Out of Scope: critics All we're analyzing is whether or not the bill has already created jobs. What critics claim or believe is immaterial to that case. We only care about what is actually the case. Did / didn't the bill lure a company here? It's also the case that the word "most" is wrong on Necessary Assumption 99% of the time you see it. Does the author really need to believe that at least 51% of critics claim something? Would the argument be badly hurt if it was only at most 49% of critics that claimed it? Of course not. The difference between at least 51% and at most 49% is so slight that it's almost never necessary for the author to believe that something is over the 50% mark.

    4% picked this

  4. If Plastonica had not opened

    Out of Scope: opening elsewhere

    There's no reason the author has to believe that Plastonica was definitely going to open a factory no matter what. It wouldn't hurt the argument at all to negate this answer and say, "It was either this area or nowhere". Plastonica might already have factories in lots of cities. It wasn't sure whether it would be worth building a new one, but then they heard about the rad incentives in this bill and it made them think, "Okay, let's build one more factory". That story is compatible with the author's notion that the bill's incentives have created these Plastonica jobs. Since the negation doesn't weaken, it can't be the correct answer.

    3% picked this

  5. Critics of the tax bill

    Out of Scope: critics' beliefs

    All we're analyzing is whether or not the bill has already created jobs. What critics claim or believe is irrelevant. We only care about what is actually the case. Did / didn't the bill lure a company here? If we negated this, it would be saying, "Critics believe that the bill has created jobs in the area". Would that weaken? No, that would strengthen! That agrees with the conclusion.

    11% 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