October 2011 LSAT Section 1 Question 25

Editorial: The town would not need to spend as much as it does on removing trash if all town residents sorted their h...

Meredith on November 9, 2019

B v D

Why B over D? I didn't chose B because I felt that phrase really didn't help the alt. Option to the authors proposal (too strong of a claim when I felt the phrase simply laid the background / foundation to the argument

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Irina on November 10, 2019

@Meredith,

The issue with (D) is that the argument does not actually rely on this premise to reach the conclusion as you pointed out - this fact is not particularly helpful, whereas the premise an argument relies on must have an impact on the validity of the conclusion. The conclusion is based on the following premises:

Because many residents would resent a mandate to sort their garbage despite some compliance
Because the costs are the same for either system
Because voluntary system does not endanger as much resentment

Therefore, voluntary system is preferred.

(B) is correct because this fact lends some - though weak - support to an alternative to a practice that the editorial defends as preferable. The editorial defends voluntary system for garbage sorting, hence the alternative to it is a mandatory system. The fact that universal compliance would save the town money on removing trash supports the fact that a mandatory system should be implemented.

Let me know if this makes sense and if you have any other questions.

Yuer-Wang on March 24, 2020

Can you explain why not A?

jingjingxiao11111@gmail.com on October 7, 2020

So is it correct to say that because universal compliance would save the town money on removing trash supports the fact that a mandatory system should be implemented, that statement in the question actually concedes to a possible objection to the main conclusion? Thank you

Emil-Kunkin on June 14, 2023

Hi, it is not A because the conclusion of the argument is the final sentence, that we should not make the switch.

I think the statement isn't exactly a concession, since the fact that it would save money isn't actually giving any ground. The author recognizes this but thinks that mandating would fail to achieve universal compliance, so just admitting that the goal is good doesn't actually serve as a conversation about a possible means of achieving that goal.