PrepTest 109, Section 4, Question 15
In 1992, there were over 250 rescues of(57 more words not shown)
Each of the following principles,(9 more words not shown)
- ATaxpayers should not(10 more words not shown)
- BThe government is(11 more words not shown)
- CFor physically risky(19 more words not shown)
- DCitizens who use(21 more words not shown)
- EPeople who engage(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Who should pay when a voluntary climbing trip ends in an expensive rescue? The passage gives us substantial public costs and serious risks. I can see why someone would want climbers to bear more of those costs themselves.
The proposed bond is money put up before the climb and forfeited to the government if calamity occurs. That is different from simply charging every climber a fee. A fee might seem easier to administer, while the bond makes the financial consequence depend on what happens. We aren't told enough to decide which system would work best.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the exception among principles supporting this particular proposal. I'd expect support along the lines of “People should pay for the costs of the risks they choose, rather than leaving taxpayers to pay.” Four choices will help the bond proposal; the correct answer will fail to provide that support.
Working the answers
- A
This supports the proposal by rejecting taxpayer funding of the climbers' voluntary activity. Requiring climbers to put up money that the government keeps in case of calamity gives the task force a way to shift some of that burden from taxpayers to the participants.
- B
This supports a different aspect of the proposal: deterrence. Having to post a large sum, with the possibility of losing it, could make someone think twice before undertaking a dangerous climb. If the government is obliged to discourage people from risking their lives, that financial obstacle gives it a reason to use the bond. We don't have to show that the bond stops every risky trip.
- CCorrect
This calls for a training requirement before issuing a permit. The proposed bond, however, is a financial requirement. A person could have extensive training and still be required to post the money; an untrained person could have enough money to post it.
A training rule might be a sensible response to climbing risks, but C doesn't explain why climbers should put up a large sum that they lose in case of calamity. Sharing the goal of addressing risk doesn't make every proposed measure support every other measure.
- D
This says people who actually use public rescue services should pay more toward them than people who don't. The bond's forfeiture when calamity occurs helps connect the financial burden to the people whose trip creates the need for help. That gives a direct reason for the proposed arrangement.
- E
This places the cost of injuries from nonessential risky activities on the participants. Climbing supplies the risky activity in this example, and the forfeited bond supplies money when calamity occurs. The principle supports making the climber financially responsible, even though the proposal also concerns rescue costs rather than only medical treatment.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.