PrepTest 106, Section 1, Question 15
The town of Springhill frequently must declare a(65 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AThe Springhill authorities(20 more words not shown)
- BThe town council(8 more words not shown)
- CThe threshold is(16 more words not shown)
- DThe threshold is(11 more words not shown)
- EThe threshold remains(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Wait—this isn't a penalty for using too little water. It's a flat fee for any usage below a threshold. That means conserving water within that range doesn't save a household money.
Suppose the threshold is 500 liters. A household using 10 liters pays the same flat fee as one using 490. Once usage passes the threshold, each additional liter becomes expensive. So the price gives people a reason to avoid going over the line, but no financial reason to cut back while they stay below it.
That makes the author's proposed change easier to understand. Instead of waiting for an emergency and banning uses such as car washing, Springhill could create a reason to conserve throughout the month. Charging for usage from the first liter, for example, would make reductions below the present threshold affect the bill too. We don't have to assume everyone wastes water just because it costs no extra.
What we’re looking for
To strengthen the argument, my first thought is evidence that people use close to the threshold and then stop. That would suggest the current price structure is shaping behavior in the way the author worries about. Let's check which choice supports changing the current pricing system.
Working the answers
- A
Weak enforcement could help explain why emergency restrictions don't work well, but the author is proposing a way to prevent the emergencies in the first place. This answer doesn't show that the ordinary pricing system encourages avoidable consumption or that changing those incentives would reduce it. It criticizes the response after an emergency without establishing the proposed pricing mechanism.
- B
Refusing to raise the threshold doesn't tell us whether the present threshold is sensible. It could already be far too high, or it could be low. The council's decision alone gives us no measure of households' needs or the amount they could conserve under a different pricing system.
- CCorrect
The threshold exceeds what most households require. That puts a stretch of nonessential consumption inside the flat-fee range, where using less won't reduce the bill.
Suppose a household needs only 100 liters but faces the hypothetical 500-liter threshold. It can use extra water for discretionary purposes without paying more, so conserving that extra water has no financial reward. This doesn't establish my exact prediction that everyone goes right up to the cap. It shows why the cap can leave wasteful usage unpriced and supports the case for better incentives before emergencies occur.
- D
Other towns' thresholds tell us little without information about their needs and supplies. A lower threshold than a neighbor's could still be unnecessarily high for Springhill. We need to assess Springhill's incentive problem, not assume the neighboring policies provide the right standard.
- E
This describes the procedure for changing the threshold. Knowing that the council must approve a change doesn't show that the existing level discourages conservation or that a different level would help avoid shortages. The argument needs evidence about water use and incentives, not just how a policy revision gets approved.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.