PrepTest 155, Section 4, Question 13
Mayor: Some residents complain that the city has(69 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AA city has(30 more words not shown)
- BA city should(27 more words not shown)
- CA city has(25 more words not shown)
- DResidents of a(26 more words not shown)
- EA city can(28 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A beneficial plan isn't automatically a plan the city has the right to force on people. The mayor promises a fair price, more city revenue, and a healthier, safer city. Let's accept those benefits. They still don't settle the residents' complaint. The residents are questioning the city's authority to require the connection, not merely whether the water service would be useful.
Think about a rule requiring everyone to be friendly. We might agree that friendly behavior would make a community more pleasant and still ask whether anyone has the authority to compel it. The point is the gap between a desirable result and permission to force the action that produces it. We don't have to resolve anyone's actual legal rights to see that gap here.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a principle supporting the mayor. My first way of putting the missing rule is that people have no right to refuse something that makes the city healthier and safer. That would connect the promised benefits with a claim about rights, which is where the mayor needs support.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This connects exactly what the mayor gives us with exactly what the mayor needs to establish. If the price is fair and the requirement benefits all residents, the city has the right to require the connection. The mayor says both conditions are met, so this principle authorizes the requirement on those grounds.
Notice whose right A addresses. Our initial reaction focused on residents refusing, but the actual dispute is phrased in terms of the city's right to compel. A follows that wording and supplies the needed permission.
- B
There are two problems. First, what the city should do isn't the same as what it has the right to do. Something could be permitted but unwise, so we can't silently exchange those ideas.
Second, 'only if' gives a requirement: the city shouldn't impose the rule unless it produces these benefits. Meeting a requirement doesn't establish that imposing the rule is justified. There might be other conditions too. Even if B used the word 'right,' merely making benefits necessary wouldn't establish that benefits are enough to give the city that right.
- C
This says an unfair price would disqualify the city from imposing the requirement. The mayor promises a fair price, so that particular obstacle is absent. But clearing one obstacle doesn't establish authority. The city might need something else as well. We need a rule that grants the right under the stated conditions, not just one that withholds it under different conditions.
- D
Having no right to complain is different from the city having the right to compel a connection. Even if residents ought not complain about a beneficial policy, that doesn't itself establish the city's authority to make participation mandatory. D changes the subject of the right and the action covered by it.
- E
This describes what the city needs in order to achieve increased revenue and better health and safety. The argument already accepts that the plan will produce benefits. What remains unproven is the city's right to require the connection. A condition concerning the ability to achieve desirable outcomes doesn't supply that permission.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.