PrepTest 103, Section 1, Question 2
Lambert: The proposal to raise gasoline taxes to(69 more words not shown)
Keziah uses which one of(8 more words not shown)
- Aelaborating the context(14 more words not shown)
- Bappealing to the(14 more words not shown)
- Cchallenging the presupposition(12 more words not shown)
- Ddemonstrating that the(11 more words not shown)
- Edeclining to argue(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Paying for something you don't personally use doesn't automatically make a tax unfair. Perhaps a gasoline tax could encourage people to choose less environmentally harmful transportation. That would be one possible defense of the policy, but is it Keziah's defense?
No. She says drivers have already been getting the better deal. The government has spent much more per user on highways than on mass transit, using general revenues. Looking only at the proposed gasoline tax leaves out that history.
From that wider view, asking drivers to contribute more toward mass transit could make the distribution fairer. Keziah isn't just saying, “Pay for somebody else's bus.” She's saying, “Consider how transportation money has been divided all along.”
What we’re looking for
The question asks how her reply works. Our prediction is that she adds background that changes how the proposal looks. Lambert treats the new payment as unfair; Keziah presents it as a way to correct an existing imbalance.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The added context is the government's history of spending more per user on highways. With that background, a tax supporting mass transit can look like a move toward fairer funding. We don't need to prove that the proposal creates perfectly equal spending. We're identifying how Keziah makes the proposal look more reasonable.
- B
Keziah never claims that every individual benefits from anything that benefits society. She doesn't have to show that a driver who never uses a bus will personally benefit from the bus network. Her point concerns the fairness of the overall distribution of transportation funds.
- C
She accepts fairness as a reason to favor a policy. Calling the new distribution “more equitable” is an appeal to fairness. The disagreement is about whether this proposal is fair, not whether fairness matters.
- D
Keziah doesn't deny that drivers will pay more. The additional gasoline-tax revenue is part of her explanation. She argues that the extra payment is justified by the larger funding picture; she doesn't make the expense disappear.
- E
Saying “You have misunderstood” isn't the same as refusing to argue. Keziah immediately gives information about transportation spending and explains why it supports the proposal. She's engaging with Lambert's objection.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.