Q23 - Government-subsidized insurance available

[jimmy902o]

Doesnt the information in the passage support an argument FOR
"E" instead of AGAINST it as indicated in the prompt?

[noah]

This is a tricky one - particularly because you're asked to identify what bill the stimulus would lend support AGAINST!

The stimulus tells us that anyone can build a house on a hurricane-prone beach. How? Because government subsidized insurance allows the owners to collect most of the losses after each hurricane.

Alright, what bill would that suggest we should NOT implement?

(A) is about power companies - we don't know anything about them. Out of scope.

(B) is about setting up a weather warning system - that has little to do with subsidized insurance. One could easily argue that we should still set-up one of these programs to protect lives.

(C) is also out of scope - life support? Who's going to argue against that with information about subsidized insurance?!

(D) is similar to (C) - it's a feel-good bill that has nothing to do with the stimulus!

So, we're left with (E), a bill about setting up a fund to pay uninsured owners whose houses are damaged by hurricanes. The stimulus does lend support against that since we have learned that ANYONE can build a house on hurricane-prone beaches because of government subsidized insurance. So, why should the government also set-up a fund to protect uninsured owners? They should just avail themselves of the government-subsidized insurance. Geez.

One could argue that since the folks are already covered, why not set-up this other fund. But, on a practical level, it's reasonable to assume that a contingency fund is more expensive than insurance. And, more importantly for our LSAT prep, all the other answers are out of scope, and this answer is one that the stimulus can easily be used to criticize.

Make sense?

[nthakka]

Great explanation Noah. After eliminating A through D, (E) really jumped off the page after a few seconds. Very simply, if there is an emergency funding protecting uninsured people, WHY would people choose to purchase insurance in the first place? Why would they pay for insurance when they would be covered either way?

Very reasonable to assume that they would be opposed to this.