Logical Reasoning

PT4 · S1 · Q1 Rita: The original purpose of

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

Rita: The original purpose of government farm-subsidy programs was to provide income stability for small family farmers, but most farm-subsidy money goes to a few farmers with large holdings.

Rita's Conclusion

Payments to farmers whose income, before subsidies, is greater than $100,000 a year should be stopped.

Rita's Evidence

The original purpose of government farm-subsidy programs was to provide income stability for small family farmers.

Most farm-subsidy money goes to a few farmers with large holdings.

Thomas's Objection

It'd be impossible to know whether income is greater than $100k for a farmer, since subsidies are given before planting/growing, but income isn't known until farmers do their tax returns in April of the following year.

Goal

We need a way to defend Rita's idea while responding to Thomas's objection.

So given that we want to stop giving farmers subsidies, if their income is more than $100k, how can we respond to the fact that subsidies are received by a farmer before they know how much income they'll make from that harvest (they won't know til they file their tax return)?

1.

Which one of the following, if true, is the strongest counter Rita can make to Thomas’ objection?

  1. It has become difficult for

    No Impact

    While this indicates the challenges small farmers face, it doesn't address Thomas's objection regarding the timing of subsidy administration.

    1% picked this

  2. Having such a cutoff point

    No Impact

    This discusses potential consequences of implementing a cutoff point but doesn’t provide a solution to Thomas’s specific objection about income timing.

    3% picked this

  3. The income of a farmer

    Opposite (if anything)

    If anything, this would help Thomas argue that it's too hard to figure out whether a given farmer makes $100k, since their income is highly variable.

    1% picked this

  4. If subsidy payments to large

    No Impact

    This points to an upside of doing Rita's idea, but it doesn't respond to Thomas's objection about the fact that subsidies are given pre-harvest, and income is calculated post-harvest the following April.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    Subsidy cutoffs can be determined

    Why this is right

    This answer provides a feasible proposal to Thomas's objection. By determining subsidy cutoffs based on the previous year’s income, Rita circumvents the challenge of not knowing current-year income during the planting and growing season. This allows the subsidies to be managed based on available historical data and makes the cutoff point administratively possible.

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

    93% 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