PrepTest 159, Section 3, Question 15
Schmidt: In enforcing township rules on how homeowners(54 more words not shown)
Chandha’s response is most vulnerable(7 more words not shown)
- Atakes a criticism(17 more words not shown)
- Bchallenges the motivation(7 more words not shown)
- Cconfuses a criticism(19 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(15 more words not shown)
- Econfuses the cause(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Would we rather have tidy lawns or neighbors who get along? Schmidt's objection makes me think about that tradeoff. If a neighbor reports your neglected lawn and you get fined, you may resent that neighbor. Encouraging reports can damage relationships and invite tips motivated by spite. I can see the concern, although someone might answer that keeping the neighborhood attractive matters more than avoiding hurt feelings. That would address Schmidt's actual complaint about the reporting system.
Chandha doesn't make that response. Chandha says the rules are needed because one neglected property could spoil the whole neighborhood's appearance. But why couldn't the township keep its rules and enforce them another way? It could, for example, pay someone to inspect properties instead of encouraging residents to report neighbors.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to criticize Chandha's response. The response defends having the rules when Schmidt criticized a particular way of enforcing them. Showing that rules are useful doesn't show that this reporting system is the right way to enforce them.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Schmidt attacks the enforcement method: encouraging residents to report neighbors. Chandha answers as though Schmidt had attacked the rules themselves, arguing that without rules a homeowner could harm the neighborhood's appearance. Keeping the rules while using another enforcement method remains an option, so Chandha hasn't answered the actual objection.
- B
A response attacking Schmidt's motive might say, “You only oppose this because your neighbor reported you.” Chandha says nothing like that. The response gives a reason to have property rules; it doesn't question why Schmidt is making the argument.
- C
The detailed provisions would be what the rules require, such as how a lawn must be maintained. Schmidt isn't challenging those requirements, and Chandha doesn't mistake a complaint about bad consequences for a complaint about particular provisions. The mismatch is between the reporting method and the existence of the rules.
- D
Chandha says one homeowner could degrade a neighborhood's appearance. That's a possibility, not a claim that it always happens. The response doesn't turn something that happens occasionally into something inevitable.
- E
Schmidt connects reporting, resentment, and spiteful tips. Chandha doesn't reverse any of those relationships or confuse which causes which. Chandha changes the subject to the appearance of the neighborhood without property rules. That is a failure to address the enforcement objection, not a mix-up about the direction of a cause.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.