#8 - Principle: If the burden of a proposed policy change

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—PR, SN. The correct answer choice is (D)

Interestingly, this is the second Strengthen—Principle question in a row. What distinguishes this question from Question 7 is that the principle is explicitly provided in the stimulus. This focuses your approach on the elements of the principle in the abstract. The most efficient approach here is to identify the elements of the principle, compare those elements to the facts in the “Application” portion of the stimulus, and identify an additional fact that would make the principle and the application scenario fit together better.

The principle is a conditional rule, that can be diagrammed as:

BFD = burden of a proposed policy change would fall disproportionately on people with low incomes
PC = policy change should not be made

• BFD PC

In the application portion of the stimulus, the author discusses Centerburgh’s plans to reintroduce rock salt as a road de-icing agent. The city stopped using rock salt several years ago because it accelerated the corrosion of automobiles. Now, according to the city, cars are better protected from salt’s corrosive properties than they were even as recently as five years ago. Despite the city’s assurance that cars are now better protected from salt, the author concludes, based on the principle diagrammed above, that the city’s plan should be halted (i.e., the policy change should not be made (PC)).

Comparing the abstract principle to the facts given in the Application, we see that the necessary condition is met. The author concludes the city should not change its policy to permit the reintroduction of rock salt as a de-icing agent. What is missing from the Application is any indication that this change in policy would disproportionately burden people with low incomes.

Do not waste time trying to prephrase precisely how the policy change would burden people with low incomes disproportionately. There are conceivably many ways in which LSAC could establish this burden. Instead, move to the answer choices on the lookout for the one choice that explains how those with low incomes would be burdened disproportionately, especially one that links to the only potential negative impact discussed by the stimulus: corrosion damage to automobiles.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice weakens the application of the principle because it states that lower-income people are less likely to drive cars. If so, they would not be burdened disproportionately by the risk of rock salt corroding their cars.

Answer choice (B): This choice has no effect on the conclusion because there is no evidence in the stimulus that re-introducing rock salt as a de-icer will increase the cost of road maintenance. It is just as likely from the information given that using rock salt is a less expensive option that could reduce maintenance costs.

Answer choice (C): This choice has no effect on the application because nothing in the city’s plan requires the town residents, low-income or otherwise, to purchase new cars.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This choice supports the application of the principle, because if lower-income people are more likely to buy older cars, which are not as well protected from salt’s corrosive properties, then they are more likely to have a car that would be corroded by rock salt on the roads.

Answer choice (E): This choice weakens the application, because it implies that drivers with lower incomes are less likely to come into contact with rock salt, and therefore will be less likely to suffer from corrosion-related issues.

[e.bryant]

Good morning,

I am taking the PS Live Online Course and recently started the take-home practice tests. Detailed explanations are not provided and I was wondering if I could ask for clarification on two problems.

Oct 12 LSAT, Section 4, Q8.

This is a Principle Justify question. I had no problem eliminating answer choices A, C, and E, so I was left with B and D. I picked B because it addressed how the road maintenance would affect people with low incomes disproportionately. This is what the principle stated. As far as D, which was the correct answer, I was hesitant but ultimately eliminated it because even though people with low incomes are more likely to purchase older vehicles than are people with higher incomes, and that would consequently affect people with low incomes disproportionately, there is no reason to believe that this would happen. Yes, they are more likely to buy older vehicles but it is not certain they would purchase any vehicles at all. I was just looking for something to eliminate one of these 2 answers and could not find a good reason to eliminate B. Would you be able to explain why answer choice D most justifies the principle?


Phew, I am exhausted from typing : ) Sorry about the long post, I wanted to let you know the particular reasons I picked certain answer choices over others. Usually I don't face much difficulty in recognizing why an answer choice is correct after I read the question a few times, but these 2 questions are just killing me.

Thank you!

[David Boyle]

Good morning,

I am taking the PS Live Online Course and recently started the take-home practice tests. Detailed explanations are not provided and I was wondering if I could ask for clarification on two problems.

Oct 12 LSAT, Section 4, Q8.

This is a Principle Justify question. I had no problem eliminating answer choices A, C, and E, so I was left with B and D. I picked B because it addressed how the road maintenance would affect people with low incomes disproportionately. This is what the principle stated. As far as D, which was the correct answer, I was hesitant but ultimately eliminated it because even though people with low incomes are more likely to purchase older vehicles than are people with higher incomes, and that would consequently affect people with low incomes disproportionately, there is no reason to believe that this would happen. Yes, they are more likely to buy older vehicles but it is not certain they would purchase any vehicles at all. I was just looking for something to eliminate one of these 2 answers and could not find a good reason to eliminate B. Would you be able to explain why answer choice D most justifies the principle?


Phew, I am exhausted from typing : ) Sorry about the long post, I wanted to let you know the particular reasons I picked certain answer choices over others. Usually I don't face much difficulty in recognizing why an answer choice is correct after I read the question a few times, but these 2 questions are just killing me.

Thank you!

Hello e.bryant,

Long post is not a problem! Shows you're thinking...

Anyway, B is not a terrible answer, as it focuses on the low-income. Then again, maybe rock salt is not the most expensive item, so even if taxes hurt the poor more here, maybe the hurt would be minimal. (And rock salt, as well, is a tiny portion of all road-maintenance costs.)
By contrast, D focuses on the cars, which is what the stimulus focused on a lot. Old cars would probably be hurt more, since the stimulus says that cars even five years old may be vulnerable to salt corrosion. So D is a much better answer.
You mention that poorer folks might not purchase cars; but realistically, they often do purchase cars in the real world, don't they? though maybe a used '79 Chevrolet rather than a brand new Lamborghini. You don't have to second-guess answer choice D so much as to "hypothesize" that low-income people may not buy cars at all.

Hope that helps,
David

[e.bryant]

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. I see your support for D but I am not sure I understand it enough that I'd pick it if I had to do this question again What would you say is the one thing that made you eliminate B and not D right away? Was it the mention of cars?

Also, if I could ask, does it matter to what degree the taxes could hurt the low income folks? Even if it did not hurt them much, it would still hurt them more than the people with higher incomes, that is, it would hurt them disproportionately.

Thanks again!

[David Boyle]

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. I see your support for D but I am not sure I understand it enough that I'd pick it if I had to do this question again What would you say is the one thing that made you eliminate B and not D right away? Was it the mention of cars?

Also, if I could ask, does it matter to what degree the taxes could hurt the low income folks? Even if it did not hurt them much, it would still hurt them more than the people with higher incomes, that is, it would hurt them disproportionately.

Thanks again!

Hello e.bryant,

You're welcome! --Yes, the cars issue was helpful in picking D.
As for the taxes: yes, the low-income folks might be hurt proportionately more, a tiny bit, by the "salt tax" (as a proportion of the regressive sales tax). But maybe that will cost them an extra dime a year, say, but the car corrosion problem will cost them an extra $200 a year for repairs or whatever. In a Strengthen question, one may want to pay attention to which answer *most* strengthens.

Hope that helps,
David

[e.bryant]

This helps a lot. Thank you!

[ylikate]

I did not chose D for two reasons -
1. The stimulus talks about the disproportion of "Burden", but D talks about disporportion of Benefit
2. Answer A, D and E all suggests that those with low income do not enjoy the benefits as much (either b/c they ride public transport, their cars are still subject to corrosion, or they don't use the road). A, D&E are not unique answers.

I chose B b.c it talks about disproporation of Burden (cost of funding).

Can you please help to explain this one?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi ylikate!

You're right that A and E show that those with low incomes don't enjoy the benefits of using rock salt as a road de-icing agent and our principle is concerned with burden. But D is different than these answer choices. D shows that people with low incomes are more likely to suffer the burden of the policy change--since they have older cars, the rock salt is likely to corrode their cars. There's no disproportion of benefit in D--everyone with cars who drives on those roads will benefit equally from de-icing. But the people with older cars will be burdened with damage to their cars if rock salt is used.

B says that road maintenance funding disproportionately burdens people with low incomes but our principle is about policy change. Whether or not whatever road maintenance funding they already have disproportionately burdens the low income group, that isn't affected by our principle because it only applies to changes in policy, not existing policies. Furthermore, there is nothing in our stimulus to indicate that this rock salt policy change will necessitate increased road maintenance funding or a rise in sales tax. So even if the burden for road maintenance funding already disproportionately burdens people with low incomes, using rock salt isn't likely to burden them any more than they already are in that regard.

Hope that helps!

Kelsey

[ylikate]

I understand your explanation. I had interpreted "Burden" as an Act, not as an Effect. i.e. the policy change would require a disproportionate amount of effort(act) from those with low incomes; not that it would adversely impact them in a disproportional way. Thanks.

[reop6780]

The correct answer is D while I chose B.

The correct answer should reflect a sufficient condition of the principle, "If the burden...low incomes." I understand answer D is suitable for such situation. At the same time I don't see the problem of answer B either. Doesn't answer B also reflect the sufficient condition that gives idsproportionate burden on people with low incomes?

ps. October exam is over
... and I'm slowly trying to adjust myself for preparing December lsat.