PrepTest 119, Section 3, Question 2
Benson: In order to maintain the quality of(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AIt presumes that(10 more words not shown)
- BIt is based(10 more words not shown)
- CIt ignores the(14 more words not shown)
- DIt fails to(17 more words not shown)
- EIt overlooks the(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An old proposal can become a good idea when the facts change.
Benson wants growth restrictions to protect the city's quality of life. I can imagine questions about that proposal: restricting growth could have costs of its own. But Willett doesn't examine those tradeoffs. Willett says the city was justified in rejecting similar proposals five and ten years ago, so this version should be rejected too.
What if the city has grown substantially since then? Perhaps there was plenty of room five years ago and now land is becoming scarce. The old decision could have been right for the old circumstances without settling today's decision. Repeating an idea isn't the same as repeating the situation in which it was considered.
What we’re looking for
We're identifying the problem in Willett's reasoning, not deciding whether Benson's zoning plan is actually good. I'd look for the overlooked possibility that new conditions now give the city a reason to restrict growth.
Working the answers
- A
Willett opposes these regulations, but that doesn't require believing growth is necessarily good. Willett could think growth has drawbacks and still oppose this particular restriction. The stated reason concerns earlier justified decisions, not a general claim that all growth is beneficial.
- B
Willett doesn't attack Benson's character. Calling the proposal an old idea is a criticism of the proposal's history, not an accusation that Benson is dishonest or otherwise personally untrustworthy. The flaw is in treating past decisions as decisive now.
- CCorrect
New reasons to restrict growth could have arisen since the earlier decisions. More people, less available land, or another changed circumstance could make a restriction appropriate today even if it was inappropriate five years ago.
We don't have to prove that any of those changes occurred. Their possibility shows why “the idea isn't new” doesn't establish “we should reject it again.” Willett needs to address the current reasons for the proposal.
- D
Many factors could contribute to quality of life, but Willett's argument doesn't try to explain all of those factors or claim that growth is the only one. Listing additional influences wouldn't by itself address the specific leap from a past justified rejection to a present one. C identifies that leap directly.
- E
A poorly qualified council could still make a justified decision on a particular occasion. The argument gives us the earlier decisions as justified; we can accept that and still find the current inference weak. The central question is whether today's circumstances differ, not whether the old council had impressive qualifications.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.