PrepTest 101, Section 2, Question 7
A neighborhood group plans to protest the closing(62 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(6 more words not shown)
- AA large number(17 more words not shown)
- BChildren, the main(14 more words not shown)
- COften the recreation(10 more words not shown)
- DPrograms that are(19 more words not shown)
- EAs people become(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Are people actually using this center?
The neighborhood has more residents per recreation center than any other neighborhood in the city. That sounds like a lot of potential demand, but counting residents doesn't tell us how many want the facilities. What if the center is often empty? Maintaining a building that few people use would raise a different question from closing a crowded one.
We should also ask whether people could go somewhere else. Losing the only center inside the neighborhood doesn't necessarily mean losing access to recreation throughout the city. Perhaps another neighborhood's center is available. That possibility would matter when we assess the resident's claim that closing this one would be unacceptable.
None of that establishes that the center should close. We would still want to know its cost, who would pay to keep it open, and how important it is to the people it serves. But the resident needs more than a large population to show that keeping this particular facility is necessary.
What we’re looking for
This is a weaken EXCEPT question. Four choices will give us some reason to doubt the resident's argument. The remaining choice may do nothing to it—or may actually help it. I'll look for information about demand and access, keeping track of which way each fact points.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This helps the resident. A large number of people cannot travel elsewhere for recreational facilities. That answers our suggestion that another neighborhood's center might serve as an alternative: for these residents, it can't.
If we close the only local center, those people lose access they cannot replace by going across town. That makes keeping a local center more important. Because we need the choice that does not weaken, a fact supporting the argument is exactly what we want.
- B
The large population figure may overstate demand for the center. Children are the main users, but children make up a relatively small share of this neighborhood. So “many residents per center” may sound more alarming than the number of likely users warrants.
This doesn't say there are no children or no users. It doesn't have to. It gives us a reason to question the resident's use of total population to make the center seem necessary.
- C
An often-empty center is evidence against the idea that this neighborhood badly needs the facility. It may still serve some people at other times, but frequent nonuse makes the claim of necessity less convincing. That is enough to weaken.
- D
The neighborhood isn't filling programs that draw enough interest elsewhere. That is more specific evidence of low demand here: programs are actually being canceled because people aren't interested. A high number of residents per center doesn't settle the matter if those residents don't want its programs.
- E
If recreation centers are becoming less important as people spend more time with computers and games, that gives us some reason to doubt the claim that this center is a necessity. This broad trend doesn't prove that every local resident has lost interest. But weakening requires some pressure on the argument, not proof that the center has no value.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.