Q17

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument concludes that if the tolls are eliminated, the entire cost of maintaining highways in Holston would need to be paid for by an increase in general taxes. Why? Holston highways must be maintained and the cost of maintaining the highways in entirely paid for by revenue from tolls.

The argument fails to consider that the money could be found in any number of other places. Suppose we raid the rainy day fund or put tariffs on some exports. It doesn't matter exactly what you come up with. Just be sure to think of some way Holston could come up with some or all of the money without raising general taxes.

Answer choice (B) defends the argument from the possibility that some of the money could be found somewhere other than general taxes. If the some of the money saved by eliminating toll collection could go to maintaining highways, then not all of the money needs to come from general taxes.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is out of scope. Even if the work could be authorized without raising the money first, the argument remains as before.
(C) is out of scope. We have no idea where efforts would be focussed.
(D) is unsupported. The argument doesn't assume that this change would increase the total cost, just a change of source to pay for it.
(E) negates the relationship expressed in the conclusion.

#officialexplanation

[lolitatrekkie]

I ended up getting this one wrong and I don't understand why B is the correct answer?

Is B correct because by eliminating the costs associated with the toll collection it wouldn't be able to pay the total cost of maintaining the highway which leads to the justification of raising general taxes?

Can you also explain why the other answer choices are wrong?

Thank You!