PrepTest 148, Section 4, Question 8
Politician: Some cities have reversed the decay of(62 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AEvaluation of legislation(9 more words not shown)
- BThe wealthier members(11 more words not shown)
- CA community's tax(13 more words not shown)
- DLegislation that is(8 more words not shown)
- ELaws that give(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A tax break could help someone afford to open a coffee shop or restore a building. Of course, a cheaper building wouldn't keep a shop alive if there were no customers. But these cities did achieve some revitalization; the politician's criticism isn't that nothing improved.
Who got the improvement? Wealthy professionals could afford the restorations and became the main beneficiaries. The long-term residents the programs were meant to help now face being priced out. A neighborhood can look better while the people the policy targeted become worse off.
What we’re looking for
For a principle supporting the criticism, I'd expect a rule against praising a program that benefits the well-to-do while hurting its intended beneficiaries.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The program's intentions don't settle its evaluation; the actual results matter too. The politician points to precisely that difference: help was intended for long-term residents, but they face displacement while others receive the main benefits. A doesn't say these results automatically outweigh every possible benefit. It gives the criticism a relevant basis by requiring us to consider what the program actually did.
- B
We aren't told that wealthy residents exerted undue influence over the government. They could benefit from a policy without having pressured anyone to adopt it. B would address an improper influence we have no evidence of, rather than the results the politician criticizes.
- C
Rules can apply equally on paper while having different effects on people with different resources. A tax incentive could be open to everyone, but only wealthier people might afford the renovation needed to use it. We aren't told that the laws apply unequally, and equal application wouldn't answer the concern about who benefits and who is displaced.
- D
The condition here is a law that benefits nobody. This legislation does benefit someone: the well-to-do professionals. The criticism is about the distribution of benefits and harms, not a complete absence of benefits. D's rule therefore doesn't apply.
- E
This points to a possible defense of laws benefiting wealthy people: they can also help society overall. But the possibility doesn't justify this politician's criticism. Nor does it prove these particular laws are good; it simply gives no rule for condemning the displacement the politician identifies.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.