PrepTest 120, Section 1, Question 20
Professor: Each government should do all that it(42 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AOnly governments that(19 more words not shown)
- BGovernment subsidy of(19 more words not shown)
- CHigh-quality day care(12 more words not shown)
- DAt least some(7 more words not shown)
- EGovernment is a(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Would the day care help the children? That's the connection we need before using their well-being as the reason to pay for it.
The professor gives us a broad starting principle: governments should do all they can to improve children's well-being. We can accept that here without turning the explanation into a debate about the government's role. The conclusion then recommends a particular action, helping finance high-quality day care, because subsidies make it available to families at every income level.
Availability isn't yet a benefit to the children. What if a child would do just as well at home? We need some reason this particular service advances the goal, rather than assume “high-quality” settles the question by itself.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a necessary assumption. My initial reaction is to ask whether day care is the right way to help. But be careful about demanding too much: the government doesn't need this to be the best possible benefit for every child for the recommendation to have a basis. Look for a connection the reasoning genuinely needs.
Working the answers
- A
This is tempting because it links caring about children with subsidizing day care. But it says governments that don't provide the subsidy cannot even take an interest in children's well-being. A government might care about children and still fail to adopt this particular policy, perhaps because it hasn't recognized its value yet. Arguing that a government should do something doesn't require declaring that any government not already doing it lacks concern.
- B
The stated principle gives us a reason based on children's well-being, not a guarantee that adult benefits will be preserved. Some adult program could be reduced without contradicting that reason. The author doesn't have to assume that every existing benefit for adults remains untouched.
- C
Subsidizing only families who couldn't otherwise afford day care is one possible funding arrangement, but the argument doesn't require it. A broader subsidy could also make day care available across income levels. And targeting the subsidy wouldn't necessarily contradict broad availability: wealthier families might pay for their own care. The answer adds a restriction on who receives money that the argument leaves open.
- DCorrect
At least some children must benefit from high-quality day care. Suppose none did. Then making it more widely available would not advance the children's well-being that supplies the argument's reason for funding it. This modest assumption is enough to identify the missing connection. It doesn't say every child benefits, that day care is indispensable, or that it is better than every other use of public money.
- E
Helping finance day care doesn't require government to operate it more efficiently than private businesses. A subsidy could support privately provided care. The argument concerns whether funding this service helps children and broadens access, not which kind of provider is more efficient.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.