Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S2 · Q12 Regina: The additional revenue obtained

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

Regina: The additional revenue obtained from leasing government-owned toll bridges to private investors will be allocated to the transportation budget, so the leases will not be used to reduce shortfalls in other budget areas.

Regina's Claims

1. The additional revenue obtained from leasing govt-owned toll bridges to private investors will be allocated to the transportation budget.

2. The leases will not be used to reduce shortfalls in other budget areas.

Amal's Responses

1. Is he arguing that the revenue we get from leasing our toll bridges to private investors won't be allocated to the transportation budget?

No, his first sentence seems to acknowledge that there will be new revenue allocated to the transportation budget.

2. Is he arguing that these leases will be used to reduce shortfalls in other budget areas?

Yes! He says the new revenue will nonetheless help reduce budget shortfalls in other areas.

Goal

They're disagreeing over whether this new lease program will help reduce shortfalls in other, non-transportation budget areas. So primarily we should look for that sort of language.

But if we dig deeper into Regina's assumptions, she is thinking that the new revenue gets put into the transportation account, and that any money currently in that account still has to be used for transportation.

Amal seems to be saying that while the new toll bridge money has to flow into the transportation budget, we'll be able to take existing money out of that account and send it to other budget areas.

So an answer might test something about , or .

12.

Regina and Amal disagree over whether

  1. there will be shortfalls in

    Unsupported Disagree Position

    Both authors seem to agree that shortfalls in other budget areas exist. They're only disagreeing about whether this new transportation budget money will have any affect on those other areas.

    11% picked this

  2. the amount of money currently

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: adequate Both Positions Unsupported Since neither author is using normative language like "adequate / enough / deficient / too much / too little", etc. we wouldn't be able to derive either person saying it is an adequate amount of money or either person saying it isn't an adequate amount.

    3% picked this

  3. new revenue from leasing government-owned

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: should Both Positions Unsupported Since neither author is using normative language like "good / bad / justified / unjustified / should / shouldn't" we wouldn't be able to derive either person saying new revenue should be allocated to transportation or shouldn't.

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    new revenue allocated to transportation

    Why this is right

    Amal would agree with this. He is saying that the new revenue headed to the transportation budget "will free up existing transportation funds for use in other areas". Regina implicitly disagrees with this. In order for conclusion to be true, she must be assuming that whatever money goes into (or is currently in) the transportation budget will not be used to reduce shortfalls in other budget areas. She doesn't think that the new revenue will result in existing transportation funds being reallocated to other areas.

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

    77% picked this

  5. leasing government-owned toll bridges to

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: financially beneficial Unsupported Disagree Position If we think that "new revenue" means "financially beneficial", then both speakers would agree that this new lease program will be financially beneficial. If we think we would otherwise judge "financially beneficial" based on a wider calculus of net gain / loss between our current world of running the toll bridges ourselves and this proposed wold where a private investor runs them, then we don't know either speaker's position on whether this overall is in the government's financial interests. We definitely can't derive from either person's statements that "this program will not be financially beneficial".

    5% 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