LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

User avatar
 Jeff Wren
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 676
  • Joined: Oct 19, 2022
|
#107302
Hi Mmjd,

You're right that if this were a Justify question, then Answer A would need to match (or at least include) the relevant terms in the argument in order to prove the conclusion.

In this argument though, the premise with the Double-arrow

Subsidize quality day care <-> available to families of all income levels

Wouldn't necessarily even be needed for a Justify answer.

Imagine that we just have a premise:

Each government should do all that it can to improve the well-being of all children in that society,.

Then we have a conclusion:

Governments should help finance high-quality daycare.

The way to Justify this argument would be:

The only way to improve the well-being of all children in society is to help finance high-quality daycare.

Of course, as you pointed out, this is not exactly what Answer A says, as taking an interest in the well-being of children is not synonymous with improving their well-being. I suppose it would be theoretically possible to improve the well-being of children without actually taking an interest in their well-being.
User avatar
 Mmjd12
  • Posts: 70
  • Joined: Apr 12, 2023
|
#107319
That makes sense, thanks so much

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.