PrepTest 148, Section 4, Question 18
Tax reformer: The proposed tax reform legislation is(53 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AIt is rare(18 more words not shown)
- BEven an overly(16 more words not shown)
- CThe proposed legislation(20 more words not shown)
- DThe proposed legislation(21 more words not shown)
- EThe proposed legislation(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if they're criticizing different parts? A tax bill could be 500 pages long. One section could give far too much detail while another leaves important questions unanswered. Both groups could then have a valid complaint.
The reformer gives a rule about one statement: it cannot be both too specific and too vague. But the conclusion is about an entire piece of legislation. We can't treat a collection of statements as though every criticism targets the same sentence.
What we’re looking for
For the required assumption, I'd look for something ruling out that mixture of defects. If the bill contains both overly specific and overly vague parts, the alleged conflict between the two criticisms disappears.
Working the answers
- A
It doesn't matter whether criticism from both sides is rare. An unusual pair of criticisms could still be accurate, just as a common pair could be mistaken. Frequency doesn't establish that these criticisms cancel out or that the bill's wording is appropriate.
- B
Beneficial results from implementation aren't the same as appropriate wording. A badly framed bill could still produce some good effects. The conclusion here concerns whether the legislation is framed as it should be, not whether someone could implement it beneficially despite flaws.
- C
Other groups might criticize the bill too without changing the issue. Their silence isn't needed for the reformer's argument about the right's and left's objections. We need to know whether those two objections can both be valid, not whether they are the only criticisms anyone has made.
- D
The author's intentions don't establish whether the actual wording is too specific or too vague. A bill not meant to please either side could be well written or badly written. The argument doesn't require that particular intention to make its claim about the text.
- ECorrect
This rules out the combination that would allow both criticisms to be right. For example, the right could be objecting to overly detailed real-estate provisions while the left objects to vague income-tax provisions. If the bill contains both kinds of defect, criticism from opposite directions gives us no reason to dismiss both.
E removes that particular problem, but it doesn't prove the bill is perfect. Even if the groups criticize the same statement, one group could still be right. A necessary assumption needn't repair every weakness in the argument.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.