Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT17 S3 Q11 Explanation

Unless the residents of Glen Hills

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsMust be True

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Unless the residents of Glen Hills band together, the proposal to rezone that city will be approved. If it is, the city will be able to build the water and sewer systems that developers need in order to construct apartment houses there. These buildings would attract new residents, and the increased population Hills. Ultimately, this growth might even destroy the rural atmosphere that makes Glen Hills so attractive.

What this question is testing

Must be True

Setup

This stimulus is not really an argument — it is a chain of "if this, then that" links. The right answer is whatever the chain locks in for sure.

Chain

Walk it slowly. If apartments get built, new residents come. New residents certainly mean roads get so jammed that new roads have to be built. New roads cannot be built without substantial tax increases. So: apartments → tax increases.

Evaluate

Watch the modal words. Schools are only "probably" overcrowded — so we cannot guarantee anything that runs through the schools branch. Roads are "certainly" congested — that is the branch we can ride to a guaranteed conclusion.

Goal

The right answer will say: if apartments are built, taxes will go up substantially. Watch out for tempting answers that try to run the chain backward (deny the consequent stuff) — most of those are illegal contrapositives in disguise.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
11.

Which one of the following can be properly concluded from

Answer choices

  1. Reversal / Negation20% picked this

    If the citizens of Glen Hills band together, developers will not

    This treats "residents not banding together" as a necessary condition for apartments. But the stimulus only says: not banding together → rezoning → apartments possible. It does not say banding together is the only thing that could stop apartments — and even if rezoning passes, apartments still depend on whether developers actually build. We cannot conclude that banding together prevents apartments.

  2. Correct54% picked this

    If developers build apartment houses in Glen Hills, there will be substantial tax increases for the

    Why this is right

    Trace the certain chain: apartments → new residents → roads "certainly" congested enough that new roads will be built. New roads cannot be built without substantial tax increases. So apartments → substantial tax increases. This is the only answer the stimulus guarantees.

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

  3. Reversal / Negation15% picked this

    If the rezoning proposal does not pass, the rural atmosphere in Glen Hills will

    The stimulus says this growth might destroy the rural atmosphere. It does not say only this growth threatens it. Even if rezoning fails, the rural atmosphere could still be lost to other causes. This answer treats the rezoning as a necessary condition for losing the atmosphere, which the stimulus never says.

  4. Reversal / Negation4% picked this

    If developers do not build apartment houses in Glen Hills, the taxes of the residents of Glen Hills

    The chain says apartments lead to tax increases. It does not say apartments are the only path to tax increases. Glen Hills could need substantial tax hikes for many other reasons — schools could need expansion regardless, infrastructure could decay, etc. This answer illegally denies the antecedent.

  5. Reversal / Negation8% picked this

    If developers do not build apartment houses in Glen Hills, the schools of Glen Hills will not be overcrowded and

    Same flaw as (D). The stimulus says apartments cause overcrowded schools and congested roads; it does not say those things have no other causes. Without apartments, schools could still get overcrowded and roads could still get congested for unrelated reasons.

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