Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S4 · Q2 Zoo director: The city is in a financial crisis

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

Zoo director: The city is in a financial crisis and must reduce its spending.

Conclusion

Cutting the City Zoo's funding in half is false economy. (i.e. doesn't make fiscal sense)

Evidence

Yes, we need to reduce spending in this city, but the zoo's budget is less than 1% of the city's deficit, so cutting that in half hardly cracks a dent in the city's financial peril.

Meanwhile, the zoo would have to close if we cut its funding in half, so that means a loss of tourists and tax dollars coming into the city.

Finally, the zoo adds to the cultural climate of the city and encourages businesses to locate here.

Evaluate

Whenever we're reading Main Conclusion or Role arguments, we remind ourselves of their heavy predisposition towards putting the main conclusion earlier than the evidence.

In particular, we look for the main conclusion to be - the very first sentence - rebutting some idea (usually after a pivot word)

The first sentence of this paragraph sounded like it could be the conclusion! It sounded like an opinion coming from the author. If she went on to support or defend the idea that the city needs to reduce spending, we would have called that first sentence the conclusion.

But instead of supporting it, she pivoted away from it (nevertheless) and then rebutted some idea.

Often, the idea the author is rebutting hasn't been attributed to any specific person. It's more like that viewpoint was said "offscreen" and the author is alluding to it like we've heard this idea before.

i.e.

I've never heard the expression "False Economy" before, but in context it seems to mean .

The author defends this idea with all the remaining sentences. She basically says that the zoo's funding is small to begin with, so cutting half of it isn't saving a ton of money. Meanwhile, it's costing the city a lot of money in tourists and businesses who won't come to the city if the zoo is closed.

Goal

On Main Conclusion, the hard part is finding the conclusion. Now that we have, we just have to find an answer that matches the meaning of the 2nd sentence.

... ... etc.

2.

Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the zoo director’s argument?

  1. Reducing spending is the only

    Background

    This resembles the 1st sentence, which was not supported and thus can't be the Main Conclusion. We're looking for an answer that matches the 2nd sentence.

    5% picked this

  2. Correct

    It would be false economy

    Why this is right

    This matches the 2nd sentence.

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

    85% picked this

  3. City Zoo’s budget is only

    Premise

    This matches the 3rd sentence, which was part of how the author supports her conclusion in the 2nd sentence.

    5% picked this

  4. The zoo will be forced

    Premise

    This matches the 4th sentence, which was part of how the author supports her conclusion in the 2nd sentence.

    2% picked this

  5. The city’s educational and cultural

    Unstated

    This somewhat matches the 5th sentence, which was part of how the author supports her conclusion in the 2nd sentence. But this answer actually goes beyond anything stated in the argument ("the city's educational climate will be irreparably damaged?")

    4% 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