Logical Reasoning

PT156 · S4 · Q13 If the natural history museum stays within

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

If the natural history museum stays within this year's budget, it will be unable to stay within next year's budget, for renovating next year will make the museum's expenditures exceed next year's very tight budget.

Conclusion

If museum stays within this year's budget, it won't be able to stay within next year's budget.

Premise (for)

Renovating next yr will make expenditures exceed next year's very tight budget.

Intermediate Conclusion (after all)

If they don't renovate this year, they'll have to renovate next year.

Premise (because)

Work from previous renovations is deteriorating rapidly.

Evaluate

We can tell the first claim is the conclusion, because every claim after that is introduced by some Support indicator (for, after all, because --- awww, it's almost the whole FABS gang; Since must feel so left out).

So we're trying to prove/create this logic path: stay w/in won't stay this yr's ---------------------------------> w/in next yr's budget budget

The first thing to ask ourselves is whether the premises already provided some sort of rule that would prove "don't stay within next year's budget".

They did! renov won't stay next yr -----> w/in next yr's budget

So now we know we're trying to prove that they will renovate next year. Did the premises provide us with a way to prove that they'll renovate next yr?

They did! don't renov renov ----> next yr this yr

So now we know we're trying to prove that they won't renovate this yr. Did they give us a way to prove that they won't renovate this yr?

Nope. The final claim, that previous renovations are deteriorating rapidly, is useless to us because it doesn't connect to this chain. They're asking us to prove that the museum won't be able to stay within next year's budget, and they've given us a mechanism to do so:

don't renov don't stay renov ----> next yr -----> w/in next yr's this yr budget

The correct answer is definitely making use of this conditional chain, and that 'deteriorating rapidly' premise doesn't interact with this chain at all, so we can ignore that.

Goal

This is the logic path we want to create:

stay w/in won't stay this yr's ------------------------------------> w/in next yr's budget budget

This is what we have so far, from the evidence:

don't renov don't stay renov ----> next yr -----> w/in next yr's this yr budget

So the missing piece we need to add in order to build the logic path of the conclusion is:

stay w/in don't this yr's ---> renov budget this yr

We can also get ready for an answer saying the contrapositive version:

do won't stay renov ---> within this this yr yr's budget

The idea of "staying within this year's budget" is a New Concept in the Conclusion, so it needs to be in our correct answer. We can quickly ditch any answer that doesn't have it.

13.

The argument's conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?

The museum will stay within
No Impact
This just speaks the New Concept in the Conclusion, but it doesn't connect it to anything. The fact that the museum will say within this year's budget doesn't tell us anything. It doesn't activate any of the conditionals. These are the ideas from the evidence - if don't renov this yr, have to renovate next yr - if renov next yr, won't stay within budget - previous renovations are deteriorating rapidly Saying "we're going to stay within this year's budget" doesn't interact with any of those claims. It goes nowhere. A correct answer on SA will always interact with at least one premise in order to allow us to derive some inference.
6% picked this
This year's budget is less
Unrelated to Goal
This doesn't mention the New Concept in the Conc of "staying within this year's budget", so it's useless to us. None of the premises mentioned that concept, so if the answer we pick ALSO doesn't mention that concept, then it would be impossible to derive a conclusion that involves that concept.
4% picked this
The museum will not renovate
Unrelated to Goal / Opposite
This doesn't mention the New Concept in the Conc of "staying within this year's budget", so it's useless to us. Also this fundamentally weakens. The way we're going to prove that we're unable to stay within next yr's budget is to say that we're going to renovate next year, and this is preventing us from saying that.
4% picked this
Correct
The museum will exceed this
Why this is right
This is our prediction, but naturally it's in contrapositive form. This says "If renovate this year, then exceeds this year's budget" and thus by contrapositive "If stays within budget, then won't renovate this year". That's what we wanted. This is the conclusion's logic path: stay w/in won't stay this yr's ------------------------------------> w/in next yr's budget budget This is what we have so far, from the evidence: don't renov don't stay renov ----> next yr -----> w/in next yr's this yr budget This answer adds this, which snaps onto the chain from the evidence, in order to prove the conclusion. stay w/in don't this yr's ---> renov budget this yr Conversationally, this says "staying within this yr's budget would require not renovating this year". We know that not renovating this year means we'll renovate next year. And we know that renovating next year means that we'll exceed next year's budget. So we've proven that "staying within this yr's budget" leads to "exceeding next year's budget".
Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
49% picked this
The museum will stay within
Reversal
We wanted "if stay within this year's budget, won't renovate this year". This provides an illegal reversal of that: "If not renovate this year, then stay within this year's budget" This is what we were trying to create: stay w/in won't stay this yr's ------------------------------------> w/in next yr's budget budget This is what we have so far, from the evidence: don't renov don't stay renov ----> next yr -----> w/in next yr's this yr budget This answer adds this, don't renov don't stay renov ----> next yr -----> w/in next yr's this yr and budget stay within this yr's budget It doesn't allow us to create the desired logic path.
38% 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