PrepTest 134, Section 1, Question 25
Editorial: The town would not need to spend(72 more words not shown)
The contention that the town(31 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(10 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(21 more words not shown)
- CIt is an(14 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(11 more words not shown)
- EIt is the(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Sorting everyone's trash might save the town money. Getting everyone to do it is another matter.
I can imagine residents resenting an extra household chore. The editorial says an order would get some people to sort their garbage, but many would refuse. Does that automatically make the voluntary system better? Not yet. Maybe mandatory sorting would save enough money to make the resentment worthwhile.
Then the author answers that concern: the two systems would cost about the same. That matters. My possible defense of mandatory sorting was a worthwhile saving, and the final premise takes that advantage away. With similar costs and less resentment, the author recommends keeping the voluntary system.
What we’re looking for
Now we're asked about the opening claim, not that final recommendation. The opening says that universal sorting would save money. That gives us an initial reason to consider making sorting mandatory. The editorial grants that possible benefit, then explains why the proposed requirement wouldn't deliver an overall advantage. We should identify the statement by its relationship to the actual conclusion: it helps make the alternative attractive before the author argues for staying with the current practice.
Working the answers
- A
The editorial doesn't deny that costs would fall if everyone sorted their garbage. It questions whether ordering residents to sort would actually get everyone to do so, and then compares the two real systems. A conditional benefit can be accepted even when the author doubts that the condition will be met.
- BCorrect
The “fact granted” is the saving if all residents sort. The “alternative” it supports is a mandatory sorting system. The “practice” defended as preferable is the current voluntary system. Those descriptions fit each part of the editorial.
The opening makes a change seem worth considering. But the later statements say many residents would resist, the mandatory system would cost about the same, and it would produce more resentment. The author therefore accepts a point favoring the competing approach without letting that point decide the final recommendation.
- C
The opening claim isn't a difficulty for the mandatory approach the editorial rejects. A possible saving is a reason in its favor. The difficulties come later: resistance and no overall cost advantage. C points the opening statement's support in the wrong direction.
- D
Not every fact an author accepts is a premise supporting the author's chosen conclusion. The case for keeping voluntary sorting relies on similar costs and less resentment. The opening saving-if-everyone-sorts claim helps explain the appeal of the competing policy; it isn't the reason the editorial gives for preferring the voluntary one.
- E
The conclusion is that the voluntary system is preferable. The author doesn't set out to prove the initial conditional claim about savings; it is already granted as the discussion begins. The argument uses the rest of the passage to assess which system should be used.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.