PrepTest 102, Section 4, Question 17
Concerned citizen: The mayor, an outspoken critic of(102 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AThe argument is(6 more words not shown)
- BThe argument ambiguously(4 more words not shown)
- CThe argument inappropriately(7 more words not shown)
- DThe argument incorrectly(7 more words not shown)
- EThe argument inappropriately(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The city hall might matter a great deal and still cost more to restore than the city can pay.
The mayor's objection is about a tight budget. The concerned citizen accepts that restoration would be expensive, then explains why the building is valuable: it connects the city to its founding, and preserving that history helps maintain respect for municipal government. I can understand wanting to protect that connection.
But have we answered the money question?
“Can we afford to?” asks whether the city can bear the financial expense. “Can we afford not to?” asks whether the city can tolerate losing something important. The second question might establish a reason to prioritize restoration, but it doesn't show that the money is available or explain what else should be cut to pay for it.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd point to that change in meaning. The citizen uses the same word to make a response about importance sound like an answer about financial ability. We don't have to deny the building's significance to notice that the original budget concern remains unresolved.
Working the answers
- A
The argument may appeal to feelings about history, but “solely” is too strong. It also claims a practical connection between historical continuity and respect for the government and its authority. We don't need to decide whether that connection is convincing to see that the response offers more than simply an emotional attachment to the past. A misses the change in the meaning of “afford.”
- BCorrect
The first use of “afford” concerns money; the second concerns tolerating a significant loss. Those are legitimate uses of the word, but exchanging one for the other doesn't resolve the mayor's objection. A city can have a strong reason to restore a building and still lack the funds. The wording makes those separate questions seem interchangeable.
- C
The citizen disagrees with the mayor's recommendation. Accepting the mayor's observation about the expense isn't an appeal to the mayor's authority as proof that restoration should proceed. The citizen supplies a different argument about historical significance.
- D
We have no basis for saying the expense claim is wrong. Both speakers accept that restoration would be expensive. The problem lies in how the citizen responds to the budget objection, not in an established error about the project's cost.
- E
“Luxury” belongs to the mayor's description of the project, which the citizen disputes. The citizen doesn't rely on the emotional force of that word to justify restoration. The response instead stresses historical importance and uses “afford” in a different sense.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.