Q19 - Large-scale government projects designed to

[tamwaiman]

I think there are two leaps in the stimulus: one is from "distributed political power" to "government by referendum", and the other is "large-scale government project designed to benefit" to "tends to enhance the welfare of a society", which is still subtle after checking the answer.

However, I choose (E) and want to know whether it makes a mistake to reverse the sufficient and necessary conditions? Will (E) be correct if it is described as "Government by referendum is sufficient to distribute political power equally and widely"?

Thanks.

[bbirdwell]

Tough question!

I think there are two leaps in the stimulus: one is from "distributed political power" to "government by referendum", and the other is "large-scale government project designed to benefit" to "tends to enhance the welfare of a society", which is still subtle after checking the answer.

I actually don't think the first leap you described is a leap. A referendum is a popular vote. The stimulus does not simply say "distributed political power." It says "MORE distributed." Government by referendum is potentially the MOST distributed that political power can possibly be. More importantly, government by referendum is, by definition, more distributed than government by elected representatives.

Will (E) be correct if it is described as "Government by referendum is sufficient to distribute political power equally and widely"?

I think the answer is "close! but ultimately no." Notice that the conclusion is not phrased in absolute, but in relative: "referendum rather than representative." So, if (E) said something like "Govt by referendum distributes political power MORE equally and widely than govt by elected representatives," it would be better.

[rdown2b]

Can someone explain this problem for me? I think i understand the stimulus but cant really connect the dots...

[bbirdwell]

Break the stimulus down into its essential parts and things become clearer, I think.

Premises:
1. large-scale project designed to benefit all --> sometimes benefit small segments more than others, at beginning

2. political power distributed --> those projects less likely

Conclusion:
govt by referendum (fully distributed power) --> diminishes welfare of society

Analysis:
The first statement has several qualifiers, such as "usually" and "some" and "at least," making it a relatively weak statement.

The conclusion, however, is very clear. And, since we're working an assumption question, we should look for term shifts or gaps between the premises and the conclusion.

What jumps out to me is the part that says "diminishes welfare." The evidence says nothing about the welfare of the entire society. Therefore an assumption is being made! It seems like the right answer should connect "diminishes welfare" with some aspect of the evidence.

Based on Premise 2, the author could logically conclude that govt by referendum (a more widely distributed form of governance than representation) would make the projects less likely.

Again, ALL we know is that referendum makes the projects less likely. And what the author says is that referendum "diminishes societal welfare." Once we see that these are two different concepts, our job is clear: connect them, so that the conclusion can be logically drawn as-is.

In other words, in order to conclude that referendum diminishes the welfare of society, the author MUST assume that those projects are GOOD for society. Otherwise, our welfare wouldn't be diminished due to the absence of such projects.

This is what (A) says. Try negating it. If these projects are NEVER good for society, can we conclude that our welfare is diminished without them? Clearly not.

(B) is way out of scope.

(C) is way out of scope.

(D) "primary purpose"? This is not required by the argument.

(E) "only way"? No, this is not required by the argument, either. Referendum is simply used as one way to distribute power.

Does that help?

[chike_eze]

During my timed PT, this question seemed straightforward. On review, I actually struggled with it. What helped during my timed session was that I made a quick decision about the gap. However, I was more deliberate during review which made me over-think the problem a bit. Quite weird

My Thought Process (Timed PT):

Okay, so they are talking about Large-scale govt projects benefiting society...
The more distribution of political power, the less likely such projects get funded
> hmm, that sounds counter-intuitive... I wonder where they are going with this

Therefore, Government by referendum more than representative govt diminishes, not enhances, welfare to society.
> Which one is more democratic? what does referendum mean again? Gosh I hope it doesn't matter
> O wait, why are they talking about "welfare to society" all of a sudden? I don't remember reading that earlier.

Confirmed: Closest reference is in the first sentence: "Large-scale govt proj... benefit everyone."

Assumptions answer should connect "Large scale projects" and "welfare to society" somehow.
> Only (A) addresses both, great! Let's try negating (A)
> Large-scale govt projects never enhances the welfare of society

BOOM! goes the argument. Picked (A), Next!

[bigtree65]

I don't think it's right to negate sometimes to never. Not arguing that A isn't the answer but I don't want to be confused on a future question where I have to negate "sometimes". Any thoughts on this?

[chike_eze]

I don't think it's right to negate sometimes to never. Not arguing that A isn't the answer but I don't want to be confused on a future question where I have to negate "sometimes". Any thoughts on this?

Hmm...

Some As are Bs
No As are Bs (negation)

E.g. Sometimes I go to bed at 10pm.
Negation is...? I never go to bed at 10pm

All As are Bs
Some As are not Bs (negation)

Thoughts??

[noah]

I don't think it's right to negate sometimes to never. Not arguing that A isn't the answer but I don't want to be confused on a future question where I have to negate "sometimes". Any thoughts on this?

Hmm...

Some As are Bs
No As are Bs (negation)

E.g. Sometimes I go to bed at 10pm.
Negation is...? I never go to bed at 10pm

All As are Bs
Some As are not Bs (negation)

Thoughts??

I think you're correct!

[dcrosspepper]

This is what (A) says. Try negating it. If these projects are NEVER good for society, can we conclude that our welfare is diminished without them? Clearly not.

I am confused. I don't see how negating answer choice A would wreck the argument.

Negation of (A): Large-Scale government projects never enhance the welfare of society.

So, you may argue, "if Large-scale government projects never enhance the welfare of society, then how could it be that an absence of Large-scale government projects diminish the welfare of society?"

Well, it could be the case that the actions of Large-scale government projects keep society at a constant level of welfare (rather than enhancing welfare). And without these Large-scale government projects, welfare is therefore diminished.

What am I not getting here?

[WaltGrace1983]

This is what (A) says. Try negating it. If these projects are NEVER good for society, can we conclude that our welfare is diminished without them? Clearly not.

I am confused. I don't see how negating answer choice A would wreck the argument.

Negation of (A): Large-Scale government projects never enhance the welfare of society.

So, you may argue, "if Large-scale government projects never enhance the welfare of society, then how could it be that an absence of Large-scale government projects diminish the welfare of society?"

Well, it could be the case that the actions of Large-scale government projects keep society at a constant level of welfare (rather than enhancing welfare). And without these Large-scale government projects, welfare is therefore diminished.

What am I not getting here?

I really like this objection! I would like to hear about this too!

[christine.defenbaugh]

This is what (A) says. Try negating it. If these projects are NEVER good for society, can we conclude that our welfare is diminished without them? Clearly not.

I am confused. I don't see how negating answer choice A would wreck the argument.

Negation of (A): Large-Scale government projects never enhance the welfare of society.

So, you may argue, "if Large-scale government projects never enhance the welfare of society, then how could it be that an absence of Large-scale government projects diminish the welfare of society?"

Well, it could be the case that the actions of Large-scale government projects keep society at a constant level of welfare (rather than enhancing welfare). And without these Large-scale government projects, welfare is therefore diminished.

What am I not getting here?

Interesting question dcrosspepper!

On one level, I think it's important to realize that there's a pretty strong term shift in the argument from "large-scale gov't projects designed to benefit" and "diminish/enhance welfare of society." I say this not to dismiss your objection, but to point out that this kind of hairsplitting is not strategic for test day. The various rabbit-holes of nuance on the LSAT are fascinating, and worth exploring, but only if you recognize at the outset that correct answers on the LSAT tend to be a bit more bluntly connected than the concern that you are raising.

I say all this, because the issue that you raise is one that falls a bit into semantics - what does it mean to say that something "enhances welfare"? You are suggesting a situation where a particular project might "not enhance, but maintain status quo" welfare, and I assume you mean "not enhance welfare in relation to where welfare was before".

So, in the year 2014, welfare is at level 100. Welfare, however, for some reason, is starting to decline. If we don't intervene, welfare will be level 90 by next year. XYZ large project will counter-balance this decline and maintain welfare at 100.

You would describe this XYZ project as "not enhancing welfare", because it does not increase the welfare level above 100, which is where it was before. But it does increase the welfare level relative to where it would be without the project. Given all the information, this project clearly has a welfare enhancement value of (+10). The fact that it doesn't push the welfare level over 100 simply means that it may not be able to single-handedly control the overall welfare level. But it absolutely adds to the enhance column in the welfare-bookkeeping.

If something did NOT enhance welfare in relation to where it would have been without the project, then removing the project would never result in a diminishing of welfare.

Or let's try stocks! If all my stocks in my portfolio are declining steadily, and I add in a stock that counteracts those continuing declines (the new one is itself increasing), thus getting my account balance to stay stable, have I enhanced my position? You betcha! Staying stable is way better than declining!

Any project that puts us in a better position than we would have been without it arguably "enhances welfare". Thus, even the situation you raise is one that I would absolutely characterize as a project that would be denied by the negation of (A)!

Does that help clear things up a bit?

[dcrosspepper]

You are suggesting a situation where a particular project might "not enhance, but maintain status quo" welfare, and I assume you mean "not enhance welfare in relation to where welfare was before".

Yes, I was.

I get it now, thanks, Christine!

[cserge18]

Question 19 Question Type: Necessary Assumption

Conclusion: Government by referendum is worse for society.

Reasoning: Big government projects usually benefit special interest groups the most, at first. Big projects are less likely to receive funding if power is equally distributed.

Analysis: The argument is assuming that infrastructure projects are good, even if they benefit small groups at first.

A. If large projects never improve society then its not clear why there would be a disadvantage to government by referendum. (Correct)
B. The argument hasn’t shown that large scale projects will occur at all if the government doesn’t do them.
C. The argument doesn’t make any claims about the democratic process.
D. It doesn’t matter what the purpose of equal distribution of power is. It only matters that enhanced welfare will be not be an effect.
E. It doesn’t matter if there are other ways. The argument just claims that this particular way will reduce welfare.

[asafezrati]

I didn't find the connection between referendum and distribution of political power, and got to the correct answer by elimination. Isn't it a bit more than the common knowledge generally required by the LSAT?

[ganbayou]

I'm really confused with this question...
The first sentence says those projects provides some benefit some groups of people.
The second sentence says if there are more equally and widely political power is distributed, those projects will receive less funding...is this because the projects only benefit some groups of people??
And what is the difference between referendum and elected representatives?
At first I thought they are the same (and that added confusion) because both are people elected by citizens...isn't it??
Are they the opposite systems?? (So negation? of one of them means the other??)
And does this argument say if it is referendum, they will not enforce large scale gov projects?
I would really appreciate it if someone could explain this...
Thank you,

[rinagoldfield]

This is a tricky question!
In answer to your questions:

The second sentence says if there are more equally and widely political power is distributed, those projects will receive less funding...is this because the projects only benefit some groups of people??

Yes.

And what is the difference between referendum and elected representatives?

Referendum is where everyone votes on every issue.
A representative democracy is where everyone elects a “representative” who then votes on stuff for them.
The US is a representative democracy – citizens don’t vote on bills; citizens’ representatives do.
Many people think the representative democracies are better at protecting minority rights than referendums are, because the representatives can choose to support something (for example, desegregation in the United States) that a majority of the voting public might not support.
This argument does suggest that referendums are less likely to create support for projects that benefit minorities.

[robinzhang7]

Correct Answer Choice (A) is still confusing me. Negating it would be: "Large-scale gov't projects NEVER enhance the welfare of society."

That is completely in line with the conclusion: "referendum [through large scale gov't projects] diminish welfare"

"Never enhancing" pretty intuitively lends itself to "diminishing". So the negation of (A) could easily strengthen the conclusion of the argument???

Could a Geek explain this?? Thanks!

[HikaruC973]

Correct Answer Choice (A) is still confusing me. Negating it would be: "Large-scale gov't projects NEVER enhance the welfare of society."

That is completely in line with the conclusion: "referendum [through large scale gov't projects] diminish welfare"

"Never enhancing" pretty intuitively lends itself to "diminishing". So the negation of (A) could easily strengthen the conclusion of the argument???

Could a Geek explain this?? Thanks!

I had the same problem. Now I think the key to figuring out this problem is understanding the structure of the stimulus in terms of how each evidence relates to one another.

we know the conclusion: gov. by referendum tends to diminish, not enhance, the welfare of society. How is that supported? There are two pieces of evidence.

1. Large scale gov. projects usually benefit small segments of society, initially at least, more than others.
2. The more equally and widely political power is distributed among the citizenry, the less likely such projects are to receive funding.

It is crucial here, in my opinion, that we have to figure out how these two pieces of evidence relate to each other in order to understand how the conclusion is supported. There is the word "initially" in the first evidence. Then in the second evidence, there is "the more...the less..." So, altogether, the two pieces of evidence seem to suggest a variation (imagining a spectrum might help). That is, initially, large scale gov. project benefits a group of citizens only but as the political power is getting more equally and widely distributed, the less likely it is to succeed.

Now we look at the conclusion. It seems that government by referendum is an extreme case of the equal and wide distribution of power, which is least likely to benefit society as a whole.

Overall, the argument seems to point out one thing: with respect to a government project, the more equally and widely the political power is distributed, the less benefit it provides.

We look at answer choice A, the negation of which would be "large scale gov.project never enhances the welfare of society" It turns out destroying the whole variation. The welfare of society can be enhanced by large scale government, though only a small segment of society is benefited. This is what the first evidence suggested, which is also the starting point of our variation.

Hopefully this makes more sense to people with similar kind of trouble.

[KippoD672]

Tough question!

I think there are two leaps in the stimulus: one is from "distributed political power" to "government by referendum", and the other is "large-scale government project designed to benefit" to "tends to enhance the welfare of a society", which is still subtle after checking the answer.

Bookkeeping services cost there description
I actually don't think the first leap you described is a leap. A referendum is a popular vote. The stimulus does not simply say "distributed political power." It says "MORE distributed." Government by referendum is potentially the MOST distributed that political power can possibly be. More importantly, government by referendum is, by definition, more distributed than government by elected representatives.

Will (E) be correct if it is described as "Government by referendum is sufficient to distribute political power equally and widely"?

I think the answer is "close! but ultimately no." Notice that the conclusion is not phrased in absolute, but in relative: "referendum rather than representative." So, if (E) said something like "Govt by referendum distributes political power MORE equally and widely than govt by elected representatives," it would be better.

Yes, I agree with the conclusion