PrepTest 111, Section 3, Question 19
Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with(50 more words not shown)
Each of the following principles(8 more words not shown)
- AThe government should(10 more words not shown)
- BThe government should(11 more words not shown)
- CThe government should(11 more words not shown)
- DThe government should(18 more words not shown)
- EThe government would(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Is the parrot really causing the risk? Maybe parrot owners in the study were more likely to smoke. That's a possible alternative explanation for the connection, not a fact we know about them.
Then the columnist uses our reluctance to put financial obstacles in the way of parrot ownership as a reason not to impose similar special taxes on recreational equipment. I'm not sure those cases are comparable. Could the risks of the other activities be better established than the apparent risk from living with a parrot? That's a fair concern about the argument.
What we’re looking for
But the question asks for the principle that is NOT logically consistent with the conclusion. So we're checking for a conflict with the columnist's position, rather than choosing our objection to the evidence. The other four answers don't have to follow from the conclusion. They just have to be able to coexist with it. The position to keep in view is opposition to special financial penalties for the apparent danger of these activities. Let's see which answer goes against that.
Working the answers
- A
This is tempting because it recommends taxing some of the same equipment. But look at the reason for the tax: funding education. The columnist opposes special taxes imposed because an activity is dangerous, not every possible tax on recreational gear.
The columnist could say, 'Don't discourage skiing with a special danger tax, but do use a tax on nonessential equipment to fund schools.' Whether we like that combination is beside the point; the two positions don't conflict. A isn't the exception.
- B
The columnist could also oppose taxes on people who avoid dangerous activities. That would be compatible with opposing special taxes on people who take part in them. We shouldn't go farther and insist the columnist must endorse a general tax exemption for healthy people. B only needs to avoid contradicting the stated position, and it does.
- CCorrect
This recommends using financial disincentives specifically to deter activities the government considers dangerous. That's the very justification the columnist rejects for the proposed special taxes. The conflict is about imposing a financial penalty because of danger, not merely about collecting tax revenue.
- D
This applies the same approach to racing cars and climbing mountains: danger alone shouldn't lead the government to create financial disincentives. The activities are different, but the principle fits the columnist's conclusion. There is no conflict to make D the exception.
- E
Taxes to provide food and shelter serve a different purpose from special taxes to discourage dangerous recreation. The columnist hasn't rejected all taxation or all public spending. Supporting a safety net could coexist with opposing the particular kind of tax discussed here.
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.