PrepTest 143, Section 1, Question 1
Pundit: Our city made a mistake when it(58 more words not shown)
The pundit's argument requires the(2 more words not shown)
- Aother private companies(15 more words not shown)
- Bthe city could(10 more words not shown)
- Cmunicipal functions like(15 more words not shown)
- Dthe revenue from(19 more words not shown)
- Eprivate companies assess(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Keeping the parking rights isn't the same as collecting the company's profits.
At first, I wondered whether the complaint would be about residents facing higher fees. But the pundit makes a different objection: the company is earning money that supposedly would have gone to the city. Let's question that claim. Would the city actually have done what the company did?
The company raised the fees. Perhaps the city would have left them alone. Perhaps it would have done a poor job collecting them. In either case, keeping the rights wouldn't automatically put the same money in the city's pocket. The pundit treats the company's success as something the city could have achieved too.
What we’re looking for
We need an assumption the argument requires. I'd look for a claim protecting that comparison: the city could have taken the steps that produced the company's larger returns. We don't need a general rule against selling public services; we need a reason the city could have collected this money.
Working the answers
- A
Other bidders aren't the issue. Even if no other company wanted the rights, we could still ask whether keeping them would have earned the city more money. The pundit doesn't need an alternative buyer to argue against this sale.
- BCorrect
The higher fees are the stated reason for the company's large profits. To treat those profits as money the city gave up, the pundit needs the city to have been capable of raising the fees too. If the city couldn't do that, keeping the rights wouldn't give it the same opportunity. B supplies a required ability, though it doesn't establish that the city actually would have used it successfully.
- C
Always? The pundit can think this particular sale was a mistake without opposing every sale of a municipal function. Perhaps another deal would earn the city more than doing the work itself. A universal rule goes well beyond the financial objection here.
- D
There could be other considerations. Very high fees might discourage people from visiting, for example. But the pundit isn't relying on those considerations; the argument relies on money the city supposedly could have earned. D doesn't establish that earning opportunity.
- E
This gives us a reason to doubt the pundit's comparison. If private companies collect more efficiently, the city might not have earned the same amount. That is a possible objection to the argument, not an assumption it requires.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.