Logical Reasoning

PT3 · S4 · Q20 Politician: Homelessness is a serious

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

Politician: Homelessness is a serious social problem, but further government spending to provide low-income housing is not the cure for homelessness.

Conclusion

Further government spending to provide low-income housing is not the cure for homelessness.

Evidence

The real-estate section of any major newspaper shows there is no lack of housing units available to rent. So the claim that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is wrong.

Intermediate Conclusion

The claim that people are homeless due to lack of available housing is wrong.

Evaluate

The opening line — "Homelessness is a serious social problem" — is a concession the politician makes before pivoting to the actual argument. The argument is about whether more low-income housing spending is the right cure, not about whether homelessness is a problem. So the seriousness of homelessness is irrelevant to the conclusion: someone could agree homelessness is serious and still accept the politician's conclusion (or reject it). The line plays a rhetorical/concessive role, not a logical one.

Goal

Find an answer that captures the line's status as a non-load-bearing concession — something compatible with the conclusion either way.

20.

That homelessness is a serious social problem figures in the argument in which one of the following ways?

  1. It suggests an alternative perspective

    Wrong Role

    "Suggests an alternative perspective" implies the line presents a different viewpoint that the argument is engaging with or contrasting against. But "homelessness is serious" is not a perspective the politician is countering — it's the politician's own concession. The actual alternative perspective the politician is engaging with is the claim that lack of housing causes homelessness, not the seriousness claim.

    2% picked this

  2. It sets out a problem

    Wrong Role

    The argument is not about how to solve homelessness — it's about whether one specific approach (more low-income-housing spending) is the right approach. The argument is "designed to" reject that approach, not to resolve homelessness as a whole. The seriousness line is not the problem the argument is trying to solve.

    22% picked this

  3. Correct

    It is compatible either with

    Why this is right

    This nails the role. The conclusion is about whether more housing spending cures homelessness — a question independent of how serious homelessness is. Someone could fully agree that homelessness is serious and still accept the politician's conclusion, or agree and reject it. The seriousness claim doesn't support, contradict, or otherwise affect the conclusion. It's a concession the politician makes that's logically compatible either way.

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

    60% picked this

  4. It summarizes a position the

    Wrong Role

    The argument isn't out to discredit the claim that homelessness is serious — the politician explicitly endorses it. What the argument is directed at discrediting is the lack-of-housing theory, not the seriousness claim. This answer reverses the politician's own stance.

    8% picked this

  5. It is required in order

    Wrong Role

    The politician's conclusion (that housing spending isn't the cure) doesn't require homelessness to be serious. The argument would still go through if homelessness were a minor problem: the lack-of-housing theory would still be wrong (because there's no housing shortage), so housing spending still wouldn't be the right cure. The seriousness claim isn't needed to establish the conclusion.

    8% 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