PrepTest 102, Section 4, Question 1
Taxpayer: For the last ten years, Metro City's(72 more words not shown)
The main point of the(6 more words not shown)
- Ashould have budgeted(8 more words not shown)
- Bwould have had(15 more words not shown)
- Cis spending more(9 more words not shown)
- Dis economizing on(10 more words not shown)
- Ehas bridges that(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A million dollars could be a lot or very little. What kind of bridges are we maintaining?
Without that context, I can't judge the budget just from its size. A small bridge over a creek and a major bridge carrying heavy traffic could need very different amounts of work. The taxpayer calls this spending irresponsible, so I want to see what went wrong.
The explanation is that the city saved money now at the expense of a much bigger bill later. Regular maintenance at $15 million a year would have prevented severe deterioration and limited the reconstruction expense. Instead, the city spent only $1 million annually and now faces $400 million in emergency reconstruction over two years. Spending less each year wasn't necessarily saving money overall.
Think about the scale: ten years of the proposed $15 million annual maintenance would be $150 million. That isn't the entire hypothetical bridge budget, since the passage also allows $10 million for needed reconstruction. But it helps explain the taxpayer's complaint about facing a $400 million emergency bill after skimping on upkeep.
What we’re looking for
The main-point question asks what all these numbers support. My prediction is the opening criticism: this budget was fiscally irresponsible. The later facts explain why the attempted economy was a bad decision. That is the claim I want the answer to express.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This states the specific failure behind the taxpayer's criticism: the city should have allocated substantially more for maintenance. The argument contrasts the $1 million actually spent each year with the $15 million that would have prevented severe deterioration. It then points to the expensive emergency work as the consequence of that shortfall. A expresses what the criticism amounts to in this situation, although our initial prediction was the broader phrase “fiscally irresponsible.”
- B
The argument favors more maintenance, not more reconstruction spending. The point of doing the maintenance was to avoid the enormous reconstruction bill. B also promises a well-run program merely from spending more on reconstruction, while the passage never gives us that guarantee.
- C
This goes in the wrong direction. The taxpayer thinks the city devoted too little to maintenance. The large expense now comes from reconstructing deteriorated bridges, not from an excessive maintenance budget.
- D
The city tried to economize, but the taxpayer doesn't describe a sensible plan to build an emergency reserve. The emergency expense is the unfortunate result of neglecting maintenance. D also leaves out the central criticism that this attempted economy was irresponsible.
- E
We aren't told what the bridges originally cost to build. The $400 million figure concerns emergency reconstruction now. Comparing that figure with maintenance doesn't establish the original building cost, and this comparison isn't the taxpayer's main point anyway.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.