Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S2 · Q14 Politician: Our public libraries are

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

Politician: Our public libraries are open only on weekdays and generally at times when most children are at school and most adults at work.

Conclusion (therefore)

If the library hours aren't changed to better suit taxpayers and their families, then no new taxes supporting the library should be approved.

Intermediate Conclusion (hence)

Most taxpayers and their families have few opportunities to use public libraries.

Evidence

Libraries are only open at times when most children are at school and most adults are at work (weekdays, during the day).

Goal

On Principle-Strengthen, we're mainly expecting a conditional rule that gets us from the Evidence to the Conclusion.

Let's look for something like .

The argument seems to be connecting to .

14.

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

Libraries and other public facilities
Out of Scope
This is somewhat appealing because the author is agitating for better hours that would be more convenient for taxpayers and families. But the should language of the conclusion is about whether we should approve new taxes, not about whether we should make a facility more convenient. We prefer an answer to have a more direct hit on the normative language of the conclusion.
7% picked this
If use of a public
Reversal
We can get rid of this as soon as we see the right side of the arrow says "should be approved". We want a rule that would end with "shouldn't be approved". This answer is a negation of what we want: if you don't make it more convenient, then new taxes shouldn't be approved.
17% picked this
Taxpayers who have plenty of
Reversal
We only need a cursory glance to see that the should language of this rule is way off. We're not trying to conclude "should have to pay taxes", which is what this rule would allow us to conclude. We're trying to conclude "new taxes shouldn't be approved", so this rule is useless to us.
1% picked this
The best way to increase
Out of Scope
This would help reinforce a conclusion about "what we should do to increase usage", but the conclusion isn't about what we should do. It's about saying we shouldn't approve new taxes.
3% picked this
Correct
A new tax supporting a
Why this is right
One-stop shopping if we're using the Conclusion Shortcut for Principle-Strengthen. After all, we're trying to prove the idea that "new taxes shouldn't be approved" and this is the only answer that provides a rule where "new taxes shouldn't be approved" is on the right side of the arrow. (Only when, like only if, shows us the necessary condition. So we would contrapose the answer to look like this:) If most taxpayers don't have ample opportunities to use that facility, then a new tax supporting it shouldn't be approved. The trigger matches what we know about public libraries, and the outcome matches the language of the conclusion.
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
72% 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