Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S4 · Q13 Mayor: Some residents complain

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

Mayor: Some residents complain that the city has no right to require homeowners to connect to city water services, even though we are doing so in order to ensure public health and safety.

Evidence

We are requiring homeowners to connect to city water services in order to ensure public health and safety.

We will charge the homeowners a fair market price for the service.

Our plan will benefit all of the city’s residents by increasing city revenue and by making the city a healthier and safer place in which to live.

Conclusion

They [the residents who complain] are wrong [the city has a right to require homeowners to connect to city water services].

Evaluate / Goal

A valid argument should explicitly state everything that's required in order for the evidence to completely support the conclusion.

This argument doesn't explicitly state that:

If connecting to city water ensures public health and safety then the city has a right to require it;

ensures health and safety → right to require

If the city charges homeowners a fair market price for the service then the city has a right to require it;

fair price → right to require

or,

If the plan benefits all of the city's residents by increasing revenue and making the city a healthier and safer place, the city has a right to require it.

benefits all residents → right to require

A correct answer is likely to make one or more of these connections.

13.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify the reasoning in the mayor's argument?

  1. Correct

    A city has the right

    Why this is right

    fair price and benefits all residents → right to require This connects two of the ideas in the evidence—charging a fair price and benefitting all of the city's residents—with the conclusion that the city has the right to require homeowners to connect to city water.

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

    90% picked this

  2. A city should require homeowners

    Reversal

    should require → increase revenue + healthier and safer This would be an illegal reversal of the type of statement we want.

    3% picked this

  3. A city has no right

    Negation

    ~fair price → ~right to require This would be an illegal negation of the type of statement we want.

    1% picked this

  4. Residents of a city have

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion doesn't state that residents have no right to complain. It states that the residents who complain are wrong. Someone can be completely wrong about something and still have a right to express their opinion. There are plenty of examples of this on Reddit (and Facebook, and LinkedIn...).

    4% picked this

  5. A city can successfully increase

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion of the argument is about the city having a right to require homeowners to connect to city water services. That's not the same as being able to require it, which is what this answer describes. I might have a right to express my goofy opinions on Reddit, but if I'm stuck in the middle of the desert without any internet connection, I would not be able to do that.

    2% 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