LR Drill Set 1, Question 6
Museum director: Our city's economy is heavily dependent(38 more words not shown)
The museum director's argument is(11 more words not shown)
- AIt overlooks the(17 more words not shown)
- BIt fails to(30 more words not shown)
- CIt fails to(24 more words not shown)
- DIt takes for(21 more words not shown)
- EIt overlooks the(34 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Are tourists coming for the museum, or just stopping in while they're already here?
Imagine a city known for its beaches. Most visitors spend an afternoon at the art museum because it's near their hotels, admission is cheap, and they want a break from the sun. The museum is popular with tourists. But if it became less appealing, those people might still take exactly the same beach vacations and spend their money in the city.
That possibility separates the director's evidence from the conclusion. We can accept that tourism supports the economy and that most tourists visit the museum. We still haven't established that keeping the museum attractive is required to keep the tourists coming.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks what the argument fails to address. I'd look for tourists who would visit the city anyway. The director needs a reason that the economy depends on this particular attraction, not merely a count of people who happen to visit it.
Working the answers
- A
Tourists can spend money at restaurants, hotels, and shops as well as at the museum. That fits the director's concern about losing tourists and their spending; it doesn't expose the unsupported step. Whether those tourists spend in several places, we still need to ask what brings them to the city.
- BCorrect
Almost all museum visitors might come to the city even if the museum stopped being appealing. Then the museum's popularity wouldn't establish that maintaining it is necessary to protect tourism or the economy. This is our beach-vacation example: an attraction can be part of the trip without being the reason for the trip.
- C
The director says maintaining the museum is required, not that it guarantees a healthy economy. A city might need to protect this attraction and also manage transportation, hotels, or other economic problems. Showing that the museum alone cannot guarantee success doesn't show that the museum is unnecessary. C attacks a stronger promise than the director made.
- D
The director need not assume there are no other popular attractions. Most tourists could visit the museum and also visit a waterfront or stadium. Even several attractions could each matter to tourism. The missing step concerns whether the museum is important enough that the economy needs it, not whether it is the only attraction most tourists visit.
- E
Equal spending per visitor doesn't tell us what would happen if the museum became less appealing. If its decline caused many tourists to stop coming, their spending could matter even if each spent no more than a visitor who skipped the museum. The flaw concerns whether maintaining the museum is needed to retain tourism, not whether its visitors are unusually generous spenders.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.