PrepTest 142, Section 1, Question 3
Editorial: The government should not fund any part(36 more words not shown)
The argument in the editorial(10 more words not shown)
- AGovernments should spend(11 more words not shown)
- BEssential government services(8 more words not shown)
- CNo government service(10 more words not shown)
- DGovernments should consider(9 more words not shown)
- EAt least some(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Is the objection that lottery money is somehow wrong to accept? No. The editorial's concern is that the money might stop being dependable.
Imagine the government getting used to paying for essential health care with lottery receipts. The care still needs to be provided when ticket sales fall, but now some of the money is missing. That's the shortfall the author wants to avoid. The argument isn't about whether health care matters; its importance is a reason to be careful about the funding.
What we’re looking for
The principle should connect those two ideas: essential services need a reliable source of money. That would explain why the author rejects a source whose revenue could decline.
Working the answers
- A
How much to spend on one category compared with another is a different decision. The government could spend most of its budget on essential services while financing them with very unpredictable revenue. A doesn't address the reliability concern driving this argument.
- BCorrect
Health services are essential, and the editorial worries that lottery receipts could fall and leave them underfunded. Requiring reliable revenue for essential services supplies the general rule behind that objection. It explains why the uncertain funding source is a reason to reject the proposal.
- C
This only rules out complete dependence on lottery money. The editorial rejects using lottery revenue for any part of these health services. Suppose lottery receipts covered ten percent of the budget. C would allow that arrangement, but the author would still object because a decline could create a shortfall. The rule is too weak to capture the stated reasoning.
- D
The author already treats these health services as essential. We don't need a rule persuading the government to take that view; we need the rule explaining what follows for their funding. D leaves out the issue of reliable revenue.
- E
A reserve fund might be a sensible response to fluctuating revenue. But that would be another proposal, not the principle behind this one. The author says to avoid using lottery money for these services, rather than to use it while saving some for a difficult year.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.