December 1999 LSAT Section 2 Question 19

Columnist: A recent study suggests that living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer. But no one thin...

Kyle on February 24, 2016

Why not A/E?

I selected (C) - the correct answer- but only because out of the other answer choices it was the one that most clearly contradicted the principle in question. However, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how (A) and (E) are logically consistent with the stimulus and so I feel like I merely guessed right. Could you shed some light on this?

Replies

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

Already have an account? log in

Mehran on February 25, 2016

@kyleryman this is a Cannot Be True question, i.e. you are looking for the answer choice that is logically inconsistent with the columnist's conclusion.

So the incorrect answer choices here Could Be True.

Let's take a look at (A), i.e. "The government should fund education by taxing nonessential sports equipment and recreational gear."

Notice that (A) does not contradict anything in the stimulus so (A) could be true. In fact, there is no discussion of funding education at all.

Now let's look at (E), i.e. "The government would be justified in levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those who cannot afford to pay for them."

Notice again that (E) does not contradict anything in the stimulus so (E) could be true. Again, notice that levying taxes to provide food and shelter for those in need is never discussed.

What about (C)? "The government should create financial disincentives to deter participation in activities it deems dangerous." Notice that (C) directly contradicts the stimulus.

The stimulus states that even though living with a parrot increases one's risk of lung cancer, no one thinks the government should impose financial impediments on the owning of parrots because of this apparent danger (i.e. the government should NOT create financial disincentives to deter ownership of parrots).

It continues that by the same token, the government should not levy analogous special taxes on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes or motorcycles (i.e. the government should NOT create financial disincentives to deter these dangerous activities either).

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Abigail-Okereke on January 20, 2023

Hello Mehran, thank you for the explanation! But I still feel like A could work because it says the gov is taxing non essential equipment/ gear. The conclusion of this argument says that these things such as hunting gear, ski gear, etc shouldn't be taxed. Wouldn't A technically contradict this, potentially making it a correct answer choice?

Emil-Kunkin on January 22, 2023

Hi, the passage is about taxing things in order to decrease their use. It says nothing about taxing things to fund unrelated goals