October 2010 LSAT Section 3 Question 2

Since there is no survival value in an animal's having an organ that is able to function when all its other organs ha...

sharonvictory on May 30, 2020

Question 3

Why is the main point of question 3 about cutting City Zoos funding in half being a false economy? I thought it would be the first sentence. Can you explain why it’s not the first sentence?

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

Already have an account? log in

SamA on June 3, 2020

Hello @sharonvictory,

I understand your confusion here, as a statement that something "should" or "must" happen is often going to be the conclusion. However, you cannot only look for key words and phrases. You must also consider how the different sentences relate to one another. A conclusion always has premises in support of it. This relationship is what you need to focus on.

Ask yourself, why would the author include all of those sentences about how great the zoo is? Is this to support the idea that the city is in a crisis and must reduce its spending? No. You can tell that none of these premises are meant to support a budget cut. Rather, they are meant to defend the zoo's budget. We are able to find the correct conclusion by asking what these premises are meant to support.

Instead of the main conclusion, I would identify that first sentence as background information. It simply sets up the problem that the author is responding to.