PrepTest 154, Section 4, Question 14
People's antagonism to development in their neighborhoods can(37 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- ANew nightclubs would(15 more words not shown)
- BAll neighborhoods in(9 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(12 more words not shown)
- DRestaurants that do(9 more words not shown)
- ENew nightclubs invariably(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Is resisting development necessarily harmful? Maybe people value the character of an older neighborhood. We should ask what harm the author has in mind rather than automatically agreeing that every change is good.
The example concerns nightclubs. Neighbors tend not to like their late hours, so giving neighborhoods the power to block them could prevent new clubs from opening. My immediate objection is about where the clubs could go. What if they opened in a commercial district outside the neighborhoods doing the blocking?
If the author wants to get from neighborhood opposition to no new nightclubs anywhere in the city, that alternative location seems like a gap. For a required assumption, I'd initially look for something establishing that the clubs have to open within those neighborhoods.
What we’re looking for
But keep the whole argument in view. The prediction that no new clubs will open is offered as an example supporting the broader opening claim about harm to a city. A required assumption might concern either connection. Let's read the answers without insisting that they use the particular gap we first noticed.
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't require the city government to approve most new clubs if given the decision. The claim is that neighborhood opposition can harm the city, not that transferring the decision to city officials would reliably solve the problem. City officials could also reject clubs without eliminating the criticism of neighborhood blocking.
- B
Equally opposed is too specific. One neighborhood could be extremely opposed and another only moderately opposed, yet both could block a proposal. The prediction doesn't depend on measuring identical degrees of dislike. Don't confuse everyone blocking something with everyone feeling exactly the same about it.
- CCorrect
This addresses a different connection from my initial prediction. Why would a city never getting new nightclubs illustrate harm to the city? Only if never getting new nightclubs is bad for it.
Take that assumption away: suppose the lack of new clubs does the city no harm. The author's example would then fail to demonstrate the opening claim, even if every neighborhood successfully blocked every club. C supplies the value judgment needed to make this example support the overall argument.
- D
We aren't drawing a conclusion about restaurants that close earlier. Whether neighbors like those businesses doesn't connect blocking late-night clubs with harm to the city. This changes the kind of business without supplying either missing connection.
- E
Benefits to the immediate neighborhood aren't required. A club could bother its neighbors while producing benefits for the city more broadly. The argument concerns harm to the city, so it doesn't need every new club to benefit the particular neighborhood where it opens. Invariably adds another demand the argument never makes.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.