Misti Duvall
Thanks Received: 13
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 191
Joined: June 23rd, 2016
 
 
 

Q23 - Official: Six months ago, the fines

by Misti Duvall Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:55 pm

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Six months ago, illegal parking fines were raised to help pay for a new parking garage. Parking violations have since dropped by 50%. So if we want even less parking violations, we should raise fees again.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is assuming that the increase in parking fines caused the reduction in parking violations. But do we know that? For Flaw questions involving causal arguments, a pretty common answer is to point out another possible cause. Here the new parking garage seems like a good bet. Maybe people just stopped parking on the street so much because they had another place to park?

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This is a pretty tricky abtract answer, so let's break it down. The only reduction in the stimulus is the reduction in parking violations. And I don't see anything that talks about any effect that the reduction in parking violations had. For Flaw questions, the first thing is to ask is "does the argument do this?" If not, eliminate.

(B) "At least as much" is an issue here. There's nothing in the argument about how much reduction will come from raising fines a second time. Eliminate.

(C) The argument does fail to take into account financial benefits to the city, but does it matter? No - this argument is only making an assumptinon about what caused the reduction in parking violations.

(D) Similarly, the argument isn't making any assumptions about people's preferences, just that higher fees will cause less parking vioations. Even if you prefer to park illegally, you still might not want to pay a fee. Eliminate.

(E) This is the answer, and it's pretty close to what we predicted above. The argument does fail to consider whether the reduction in parking violations was caused by people parking in the new garage instead, which would be an alternate cause for the initial reduction. And call into question the benefits of a futher reduction.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Be on the lookout for causal arguments. If you see one, ask: are there other possible causes?

#officialexplanation
LSAT Instructor | Manhattan Prep