PrepTest 113, Section 3, Question 24
Town councillor: The only reason for the town(62 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AOrdinances that restrict(19 more words not shown)
- BSince the town(23 more words not shown)
- CSince safety in(31 more words not shown)
- DIf recreational activities(19 more words not shown)
- EOrdinances that seek(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If the ban makes the children less safe, what would it accomplish?
At first, I might question the claim that safety is the only possible reason to restrict skateboarding. But that's the councillor's stated purpose, and the rest of the argument gives a clear reason to reject this particular ban on those terms. Children forced out of the park would skateboard in the streets, which are more dangerous.
That doesn't make the park safe. A child could still fall there. The point is that moving the same activity into traffic would expose the children to greater danger. We should compare what would happen with the ban against what would happen without it, rather than treating the existing risk as enough to justify any response.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a principle supporting the councillor's position. My prediction is straightforward: don't enact a measure intended to reduce danger if it would create an even greater danger. That gives us a reason to reject the proposed ban while still taking children's safety seriously.
Working the answers
- A
This makes danger a requirement for passing a restriction. The activity is dangerous, so that requirement is met. But A doesn't tell us whether to pass the restriction once danger is present, and it doesn't account for the greater danger the ban would create. It leaves our decision unresolved.
- B
This gives a reason to restrict dangerous activities on public property: the town might be liable for accidents. That could favor restricting skateboarding in the park. It doesn't support the councillor's reason for leaving it permitted, which is the comparison with the more dangerous streets.
- C
Leaving regulation to parents could provide a separate reason for opposing a town ban, so it isn't an absurd idea. But it shifts the argument to who should decide based on a child's skill. The councillor's reasoning instead compares the danger in two places and predicts where children would go. E directly supports that reasoning without needing a different account of parental discretion.
- D
This points the other way. If danger is enough to require a prohibition, the acknowledged danger of skateboarding in the park gives a reason to ban it. The councillor argues that we shouldn't do so because the resulting alternative would be worse.
- ECorrect
The ban seeks to eliminate the danger of skateboarding in the park. But according to the argument, it would lead children to skateboard in the more dangerous streets. E says not to enact a danger-reducing ordinance when its effect would be to create a greater danger.
That's the comparison we need. We aren't choosing between danger and perfect safety; we're choosing between allowing a risky activity in the park and pushing it into a riskier place.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.