#19 - Large-scale government projects designed to benefit

[htngo12]

Hi!

For this assumption question, I had a hard time with finding an necessary answer for the conclusion to be true.

For the argument:

Premise1: Large-scale government projects are designed to benefit everyone -usually benefit some segment of society.

Premise2: The more equally and widely political power is distributed among citizenry, the less likely projects are to receive funding.

Conclusion: Gov't by referendum tends to diminish, not enhance society.

I picked (B) as my answer, but when I reevaluated my decision, it did make any sense.

With answer (A), only tying Premise 1 to the conclusion made more sense. Should I have evaluated Premise 2 as irrelevant to the argument?

[Adam Tyson]

Actually, htngo12, the second premise is, in my analysis, essential to the conclusion and thus to the assumption answer. Here's why:

Widely distributed power makes funding for big projects less likely (that's the second premise, paraphrased)

Widely distributed power (by referendum) makes for diminished welfare (that's the conclusion, paraphrased)

Now you can see the missing link in the argument is the gap between not funding the big projects (so they presumably don't get done) and diminished welfare. We need to show that without the projects, welfare is diminished. That sounds causal to me, since "diminish" is a fairly active verb - the absence of the big projects causes a reduction in the overall welfare of society. Once we have that causal relationship, we can identify a bunch of assumptions built into it, including that when the cause is absent (when we actually do the big projects) the effect is absent (welfare is not diminished).

Answer A is the closest match, if we use that causal approach, and the negation of answer A (big projects never help) wrecks the argument. If the big projects don't help, how can their absence hurt?

It's not absolutely essential to use this causal approach here, but it sure helped me. Let us know if looking at it in that light helps you, too!

[LAM]

I picked E, even though I wanted to pick A. A looked really enticing but I figured it was the first one so I was cautious. I ultimately picked E because it bridged referendum in conclusion with widely-spread political power in premise. I figured that one dealt directly with the confusion I felt with the two aforementioned terms in premise and conclusion. Should I have ultimately ruled it out because of 'the only' in answer E being too strong?? Assumption questions are my Achilles heel.

[htngo12]

I got it! Thanks for your help!

[Adam Tyson]

"The only" isn't the biggest problem here, LAM, although you are right that in this case it is too strong. Some assumptions may be about "the only", but not this one. The real issue here is that the answer we need must connect us to the new element in the conclusion, and that's the idea of diminishing the welfare of society. Answer E just doesn't make that connection for us, and so it has to go into the "loser" pile.

Focus on that conclusion, connect the premises to it, and that's where your assumption prephrase should begin, 4 times out of 5. The other time will be about fighting off attacks, shoring up weaknesses, like in a causal argument where the author assumes that there is no alternate cause and assumes that the purported cause and effect are not reversed.

Keep at it, you'll get there! Meanwhile, take a little comfort in the fact that in recent years, Assumption questions have been only the 4th most common type of question on the test, making up less than 12% of all LR questions. (see http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/lsat-lo ... appearance for more on that topic) If the struggle continues, don't give up, because that's still a high percentage, but focus your efforts on the three bigger ones on that list to counter that weak spot on your portfolio.

Keep up the good work!

[LAM]

First of all Adam, wow - thanks for the link/info about question percentages on the test. That is fantastic information.

I don't want to be a pain but your explanation isn't working for me because as I see it there are 2 rogue elements in the conclusion which partially accounted for my difficulty. 1) referendum vs elected govts and 2) welfare to society. I noticed both of these. But either were mentioned in premise. There were similar elements to both mentioned in premise: 1) political power being distributed widely and 2) benefits to smaller communities. Can you enlighten me a little further?

[Francis O'Rourke]

If I understand your comment, you saw government by referendum and government by elective representative as new rogue terms introduced in the conclusion, so you wanted an answer that would connect referendums to equally and widely distributed political power. This may sound subjective, but you have to see that the terms are already connected, since referendums necessarily entail more widely distributed political power than representation by elected officials: millions of citizens in a country vs only a few hundred representatives means that referendums will distribute political power to more people and thus be more widely distributed.

You're also right that "only" in choice (E) is far too specific for what the author has to assume, but as Adam wrote above, it also fails to address the bigger issue of connecting welfare to the premises.

[avengingangel]

hello! could you please explain this question as if someone had NO IDEA what "referendum" meant ?? (what..no..not me..asking for a friend..) from context, i was thinking it could either mean 1) something that represents equal & widely distributed political power, or 2) NOT something that represents equal and widely distributed political power (i couldn't tell from the stimulus if the autho was portraying elected rep-gov't as either of those definitions, either). But, even after I worked thru analayses where refernendum meant one of those things, i still did not get to A. (with referendum as 'equal & dist.' I got to E, and w/ referendum as 'NOT equal & dust.' i didn't find an answer choice). i hope any of that makes sense. help please ????

[Adam Tyson]

That's a tough one, angel! While the LSAT is not a test of knowledge, the authors DO assume a certain high level of vocabulary among test takers, and they are not afraid to challenge us with that vocab. Your best bet here is to start with context clues, and the first of those is that referendum is countered by "rather than by means of elected representatives". So referendum means something different than having representatives. What is the alternative? Representing yourself - everyone has a say, everyone votes, nobody substitutes their voice for your own.

Tie that back to the earlier statements about wider distribution of power. Having one person decide for everyone is about as narrow as you can get, a dictatorship. Having a few representatives, each of whom represents a large portion of the nation, starts to spread things out a bit. More reps, each standing for smaller portions of the nation, spread it out further. The widest possible distribution of power is where there are no representatives and no single person making decisions. Instead, everyone has an equal say.

Putting that all together, "referendum" must be a way that power is widely distributed, where everyone speaks for themselves and there are no representatives making the decisions for others.

Context is great, but boning up on your vocabulary is better! Tell your friend to use the LSAT, including as many older tests as they can get their hands on, as an opportunity to study new words and expand that vocab quickly. They will start to notice the same big words and ideas being used over and over again, and that familiarity will really pay off.

Good luck to your friend!