PrepTest 133, Section 1, Question 20
Council member: The profits of downtown businesses will(46 more words not shown)
If all the council member's(11 more words not shown)
- AIf downtown traffic(13 more words not shown)
- BIf the cost(14 more words not shown)
- CIf downtown traffic(12 more words not shown)
- DIf downtown traffic(12 more words not shown)
- EIf the profits(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More people living downtown would give the shops more customers. That's one route to higher profits. It doesn't have to be the only route—more tourists could bring in business too.
Now add the second promise. If living downtown gets cheaper, more consumers will live there. Follow the connections: a lower cost of living leads to more local consumers, and more local consumers lead to higher business profits. The first change therefore carries us through to the final result.
The traffic statement works differently. Profits won't increase unless congestion decreases. That makes less congestion a requirement for the profit increase, not a promise that clearing the traffic will make everything else happen.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to take all these statements as true and find what follows. Keep the linked promises separate from that requirement. In particular, don't turn 'this must happen for profits to rise' into 'if this happens, profits will rise.'
Working the answers
- A
Less congestion doesn't guarantee more people living downtown. It satisfies a requirement for higher profits, but the passage never says it causes residents to move in. The number of local consumers could stay the same even after traffic improves.
- BCorrect
If the cost of living decreases, the number of consumers living downtown increases. If that number increases, downtown business profits increase. B connects those two statements and leaves out the middle step.
The traffic requirement doesn't undo either promise. We're assuming all the council member's statements are true, so any profit increase must also meet that requirement. But we don't need the traffic statement to establish the particular link B asks about.
- C
Why would living costs increase when congestion decreases? The council member gives no rule in that direction. We know less traffic is required for higher profits, but we aren't told that it makes housing or other living expenses more costly. C adds an effect the statements never supply.
- D
This has the same starting point as C but predicts the opposite result: lower living costs. Neither direction is established. The given rule starts with lower costs and leads to more consumers; it doesn't start with less traffic and tell us what costs will do.
- E
More residents guarantee more profits, but more profits don't guarantee more residents. Suppose the resident population stays the same while tourists spend more in the shops. Profits could rise that way, with congestion also decreasing as required, without any increase in local consumers. E wrongly treats the one stated route to profit growth as the only possible route.
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.