#24 - Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14168)

The correct answer choice is (D)

Passage Exclusivity questions ask about information contained in only one of the two passages, but
the general nature of this question makes it difficult to arrive at a precise prephrase. Instead, try the
process of elimination: any answer choice that cannot be proven by reference to Passage B will be
incorrect.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice contains an exaggeration: we cannot prove that most water
customers in the city are delinquent just because some of them are.

Answer choice (B): Just because some delinquent residents live in high-income neighborhoods does
not mean that most such residents live in high-income neighborhoods. As with answer choice (A),
this one contains an exaggeration.

Answer choice (C): The author is generally critical towards the idea of selectively shutting
off people’s water (lines 60-61). It is highly unlikely that she would describe this practice as
“appropriate,” especially considering that the delinquent water bills were paid only a few days late.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. From the discussion in the first paragraph
of passage B, we can infer that the city officials’ plan is a novel one. For instance, some of the
delinquencies are decades-old, implying that the city has not been successful in attempting to collect
their debts. Also, shutting off people’s water is described as a drastic idea aimed at making an
example of a few privileged residents. Shutting off people’s water is clearly not a common response
to delinquent accounts: if it were, water delinquents would have had their water shut off a long time
ago.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice may seem attractive, because the author of passage B clearly
wants to classify water bills as taxes (lines 58-61). However, we are left wondering if this is the only
reasonable solution to the problem of overdue water bills.

[NeverMissing]

Hi Powerscore,

I wanted to make sure I understand the reason why D is the correct answer. Is it because of the fact that some bills are late by months or decades? Is this the key piece of information in Passage B that allows us to infer that the city has rarely or never shut off the water of late-paying customers in the past? Are we to assume that if the city had done this in the past, there would not be a significant amount of late-paying customers?

I ask because it does seem possible that there could still be many decades-long late-paying customers even if the city frequently shut off the water of high-income late-payers. Perhaps these high-income late-payers simply buy bottled water in bulk and let the overdue water bill sit unpaid for decades and decades. Improbable sure, but still possible.

If there are other clues in the passage that hint that the water shut-off plan is a new tactic for the city, could you direct me to where those would be found? Thanks!

[Ricky_Hutchens]

Hi NeverMissing,

I think you are halfway there, but you should also take into account the next sentence in the passage which states that the city is considering cutting off the water of a few select residences. Because there are so many late bills, some for very long periods of time, and the city is now considering cutting off the water, but only in a few residences, we can infer that the city doesn't normally cut off people's water. If they did, there wouldn't be anything to consider now because it would already be their common practice.

Hope that helps.

[bella243]

Hi Powerscore,

Could someone please confirm that my thinking behind eliminating E is correct?

I think that E cannot be inferred because the author does not necessarily suggest treating overdue water bills as taxes, but rather amending the law to enable a lien to be attached to property for overdue water bills, not just taxes.

[Adam Tyson]

That's a part of it, bella, but look how extreme the language is in answer E - "the only reasonable solution." The author thinks that treating water bills the way taxes are treated is better than selective enforcement by shutting off some peoples' water, but that doesn't mean the author thinks selective enforcement is unreasonable or that there there are no other reasonable solutions to the problem. Beware of answers that are stronger than the evidence will support! This is, after all, a form of Must Be True question, and we apply the same standard in Reading Comp that we do in Logical Reasoning. The answer must be based on the facts in the passage, and cannot be more extreme than that evidence.