PrepTest 109, Section 3, Question 13
Editorialist: Some people argue that ramps and other(46 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AOwners of business(12 more words not shown)
- BBusinesses that install(13 more words not shown)
- CMany businesses fail(11 more words not shown)
- DMost businesses are(6 more words not shown)
- ESome business areas(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe wheelchair users don't visit because they can't get in.
Imagine a restaurant with steps at the entrance and no accessible way inside. The absence of wheelchair users wouldn't show that nobody using a wheelchair wants to eat there. It could reflect the barrier. Using that absence as a reason to leave the barrier in place gets the explanation backward.
The editorialist gives evidence for exactly that concern: after accommodations are installed, people using wheelchairs arrive to shop and work. That is a sensible response to the claim that the accommodations are unnecessary. The change in access is followed by the very use that supposedly would never happen.
What we’re looking for
For the most-strongly-supported question, I'd keep the conclusion limited to access. The lack of accommodations keeps wheelchair users away from at least some business areas. The passage gives us a reason for their absence; it doesn't settle every business owner's attitude or every business's finances.
Working the answers
- A
Who are the “some people” making the opening argument? We aren't told they are the owners. An owner might be happy to make changes once the access problem is pointed out. The passage doesn't establish either the identity of the critics or a general reluctance among owners.
- B
More visitors doesn't establish greater profit than other businesses. Imagine spending five hundred dollars on a ramp and then selling one extra coffee. The extra sale alone wouldn't tell us whether the business earned more after costs, much less whether it outperformed businesses without accommodations. That is an illustration of the missing financial comparison, not an estimate of what ramps actually cost.
- C
We have no information about how many businesses fail to make a profit or why they fail. Lack of access could keep potential customers away without making a business unprofitable. C changes a supported point about who can attend into an unsupported explanation of business losses.
- D
The passage describes certain business areas. It never says that more than half of all businesses lack accommodations. We can't infer a majority from the examples or from the fact that some people object to making changes.
- ECorrect
This is the access explanation we predicted. Wheelchair users begin shopping and working in these areas once accommodations are installed. That supports the idea that the earlier lack of access was keeping people away.
E says some areas, which fits the evidence. It doesn't say every absence has this cause, that everyone will visit once a ramp is installed, or that the businesses will necessarily become more profitable.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.