PrepTest 134, Section 3, Question 15
Columnist: Shortsighted motorists learn the hard way about(77 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AEven some cars(10 more words not shown)
- BThe columnist's city(21 more words not shown)
- CMost motorists who(13 more words not shown)
- DQualified economic development(13 more words not shown)
- ECities that have(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I understand the appeal of planning ahead. Skipping an oil change saves money today but can leave you with a much more expensive problem later. Spending something now can be sensible.
But hiring an economic adviser isn't automatically the city's equivalent of an oil change. Avoiding a repair bill and earning a large economic return are different outcomes. More importantly, what makes us think the experience of other cities will carry over to this one?
The other cities spent resources on economic development planning. Did they hire an adviser like ours, or did they use different methods? Maybe their success came from a particular planning tool or a broader program. If the methods or circumstances differ, their results might not predict the payoff from our hire.
What we’re looking for
For a weakener, I'd look for a meaningful difference between the successful cities and this city. The point isn't that long-term thinking is bad. It's that praising this particular investment requires a reason to think it will work here.
Working the answers
- A
Some well-maintained cars can break down even if maintenance almost always pays off. An exception doesn't contradict that qualified claim. More importantly, the conclusion concerns the city's economic investment. A doesn't show that hiring this adviser is unlikely to produce the expected return.
- BCorrect
The city's much smaller population and economy make the successful cities less reliable comparisons. This is a difference in circumstances rather than the difference in planning methods I initially considered, but it challenges the same inference.
Think of a large city compared with a town of one hundred people. Paying for a full-time specialist might make sense for the large economy, while the tiny town might have too few opportunities to justify the same expense. B doesn't prove the hire will fail. It gives us a reason to question assuming that the other cities' large returns will be repeated here.
- C
Why motorists skip maintenance doesn't establish whether the city's hire is wise. The car example introduces the benefit of thinking ahead. Explaining drivers' motives leaves the evidence about economic planning untouched.
- D
Expensive doesn't necessarily mean not worth it. An adviser paid $500,000 could still be an excellent investment if the work brought the city $100 million. Those numbers are an illustration, not a prediction. What matters is cost compared with benefit, and an amount many councils are unwilling to spend doesn't establish a bad return here.
- E
The columnist already expects the payoff to take several years. Other cities receiving nothing in the first few years fits that long-term picture. A delay would challenge a promise of immediate returns, but that isn't the promise the columnist makes.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.