PrepTest 147, Section 1, Question 17
Politician: Over the next decade, our city will(37 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AWhat features of(10 more words not shown)
- BAre the new(13 more words not shown)
- CWhat percentage of(14 more words not shown)
- DDo any other(13 more words not shown)
- EWere experts consulted(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Is it really a colossal expense? We haven't been told how much the new signs cost or how much work installing them will take. Calling the project a waste of that scale needs more support than 'nobody complained.'
And people don't have to complain for an improvement to be useful. Someone might think their vision is fine until they try glasses and realize how much they weren't seeing. Drivers could similarly get used to hard-to-read signs without noticing how much better the signs could be.
What we’re looking for
To evaluate the argument, I'd want to learn more about the project's actual costs and benefits. The lack of complaints doesn't settle either.
Working the answers
- A
Knowing whether the signs use a larger font, different colors, or some other feature could explain how readability improves. But describing the design isn't the same as showing whether the improvement justifies the work and expense. The argument concerns whether the replacement project is a colossal waste, and the feature list doesn't directly answer that.
- B
Manufacturing cost is relevant, but this comparison leaves a lot open. A sign that costs five dollars instead of one is considerably more expensive, yet that alone wouldn't establish a colossal expense. Conversely, replacing many signs unnecessarily could be wasteful even if each new sign were cheap. We need to understand the cost of undertaking this project, not just how the price of one design compares with the old design.
- CCorrect
Perhaps the city would be replacing these signs anyway. Suppose its ordinary maintenance cycle replaces a different tenth of the signs each year. Over ten years, all the signs would be replaced whether or not the city adopted the new design. Choosing more readable signs during that routine work would be very different from paying for an entirely extra round of replacements. On the other hand, if the city ordinarily replaces almost none of its signs, the plan could require substantial additional work. The answer helps us distinguish those situations and assess the claimed waste.
- D
Other cities may have different budgets, signs, and replacement needs. Their plans don't tell us whether this city's project is worthwhile. Even widespread adoption elsewhere would leave the local costs and benefits unanswered.
- E
Consulting experts doesn't establish that the project is worth doing. Experts might help design excellent signs, but the installation could still cost more than the benefit is worth—or it could fit easily into ordinary maintenance. The fact of consultation doesn't resolve the politician's claim about waste.
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.