PrepTest 138, Section 3, Question 25
Alissa: If, as the mayor says, the city(71 more words not shown)
On the basis of their(16 more words not shown)
- Awhether the city(16 more words not shown)
- Bwhether the mayor(20 more words not shown)
- Cwhether the city(25 more words not shown)
- Dwhether local children's(21 more words not shown)
- Ewhether the children's(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A richer experience for each visitor is a good reason to value the museum. But how many children actually get to visit?
A child might go to the museum once a year and have access to children's television every day. That possibility doesn't prove television is the better use of funds. It shows why the quality of a visit and the reach of a program are different considerations.
Alissa emphasizes quality: the interactive museum provides a richer experience than largely passive television, so keep the museum. Greta emphasizes reach: the museum serves far fewer people, so keep the television programming instead.
What we’re looking for
They therefore disagree about what to stop funding if the city can't afford both. The question asks for a disagreement we can establish from their statements. We don't need either speaker to deny the other's factual concern; they can disagree about the decision while accepting both the museum's quality and television's larger audience.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns the budget constraint: if the city keeps the museum, must it stop funding television? Both speakers reason within the mayor's account that the city can't continue funding both. Their disagreement is about which service should lose funding, not whether keeping one would require giving up the other.
- B
Neither speaker accuses the mayor of being untruthful. Alissa makes her recommendation conditional on the mayor's funding claim, and Greta also cites the mayor. Different recommendations don't establish a disagreement about whether the mayor has told the truth.
- CCorrect
If continuing television funding means losing museum funding, should the city stop funding television? Alissa says yes: preserve the richer museum experience. Greta says no: preserve the television programming that reaches more children, even though that means stopping the museum's funding. The condition sets up the same forced choice, and the speakers give opposite answers.
- D
Alissa doesn't deny that television reaches more children with a beneficial experience. She says the museum offers a richer experience. A program can offer a less rich experience to more people, so the quality comparison doesn't establish opposition to Greta's point about audience size.
- E
Greta doesn't say the museum's experience is poor. She could agree that it is rich and still prefer to fund the program with the larger audience. Her objection is to how few children the museum reaches, not to the value of a visit for those who get one.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.