Logical Reasoning

PT5 · S3 · Q4 The United States government generally

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

The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natural resources.

Conclusion

One natural resource — topsoil — has been ignored for too long; federal expenditures for soil conservation are too low.

Evidence

Each bushel of corn might cost up to two bushels of topsoil. In many states topsoil has eroded from about 14 inches to 6–8 inches over 100 years. Despite this, federal soil-conservation expenditures are "ridiculously low" — in fact, total federal expenditures are less than the allocations of some individual states.

Evaluate

The question asks what the author does. The most concrete tactic in the passage is the comparison at the end: federal vs. state expenditures.

Goal

Find an answer that accurately describes a move the author actually makes — namely, comparing state to federal expenditures.

4.

In stating the argument, the author does which one of the following?

  1. Makes a detailed statistical projection

    Bad Description

    The author cites past statistics (erosion of topsoil over 100 years) but does not project future losses. There is no detailed statistical projection of future topsoil loss in the argument.

    4% picked this

  2. Makes a generalization about total

    Bad Description

    The author says topsoil "in many states" went from about 14 inches to 6–8 inches — explicitly limiting the claim to "many states," not generalizing to "all states." So this is not a generalization about all states.

    8% picked this

  3. Assumes that the United States

    Bad Description

    The author says the government generally tries to protect natural resources but has ignored topsoil. So the author is not assuming the government places no high value on natural resources — the author is acknowledging the government does value them, just not topsoil specifically.

    8% picked this

  4. Refrains from using slanted language

    Bad Description

    The author calls federal expenditures "ridiculously low." That is slanted, evaluative language — exactly what this answer says the author refrains from. So the description is the opposite of what the author actually does.

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    Compares state expenditures with federal

    Why this is right

    This describes a move the author explicitly makes. The final sentence directly compares state to federal expenditures: "Total federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have been less than the allocations of some individual states." That is a straightforward state-versus-federal comparison, used to emphasize how inadequate the federal effort is.

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

    77% 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