PrepTest 104, Section 4, Question 4
Mayor: Citing the severity of the city's winters,(73 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(6 more words not shown)
- AUsing rubberized asphalt(16 more words not shown)
- BThe severity of(18 more words not shown)
- CIt would cost(23 more words not shown)
- DSavings in the(18 more words not shown)
- EThe techniques the(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More expensive to install—but what will it save us afterward? The mayor is looking at the cost of the new asphalt while the commissioner is pointing to cheaper ice removal. We need both sides of that comparison.
The rubber flexes under passing vehicles and breaks up the ice. Take that benefit as given. It could make clearing the roads cheaper, just as the commissioner says. Of course, that doesn't automatically make repaving a good financial decision. A small maintenance saving might not justify a huge construction bill.
But the mayor makes the opposite leap: because the asphalt costs more and the road budget can't grow, the project isn't financially feasible. What if the savings cover the extra cost? Suppose, within the relevant budget period, the new asphalt adds $10 million to construction costs but cuts ice-removal costs by $15 million. The combined bill falls by $5 million. An unchanged total budget wouldn't rule that out.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what the mayor assumes. The mayor needs to rule out that possibility: the savings on ice removal won't pay for the additional asphalt expense. Otherwise, the very benefit mentioned in the argument could answer the mayor's financial objection.
Working the answers
- A
The mayor doesn't need to assume the new surface has no other advantages. Perhaps it looks nicer. That wouldn't make an unaffordable project affordable. The argument needs a claim about the financial comparison, not a blanket denial of every possible benefit. Even an advantage with some financial value wouldn't automatically cover the additional cost.
- B
Winters can vary while the mayor still maintains that the proposal costs too much. A severe year and a milder year could produce different savings, but the necessary point is whether the relevant savings pay for the increased expense. The mayor doesn't have to assume winter severity stays nearly identical from one year to the next.
- C
This compares putting rubber in asphalt with putting rubber in other paving materials. Even if rubberized concrete were cheaper, that wouldn't establish whether the particular rubberized-asphalt proposal fits the city's budget. The mayor can make the same cost objection regardless of which other material is cheaper to modify. It isn't a required assumption.
- DCorrect
This supplies the missing comparison. The mayor points to a higher paving cost as a reason the proposal won't fit the budget, so the mayor must assume that the stated maintenance savings won't pay for that increase. Try the opposite: suppose those savings do cover the extra expense. Then the mayor can't reject the plan on the ground that this switch requires a larger combined road budget. This doesn't mean D alone proves the entire proposal infeasible; it closes the specific hole in the mayor's reasoning.
- E
The city might already use the cheapest available ice-removal method for its current roads. The mayor could still argue that switching surfaces would cost too much. Or the city might be wasting money on an expensive method. Neither possibility is settled here. This claim about existing techniques is not needed for the mayor's comparison of the proposed cost increase with the available budget.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.