LSAT Explanation PT 25, S4, Q1: Taxpayer: For the last ten years,

LSAT Question Stem

The main point of the taxpayer's argument is that Metro City 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Main Conclusion question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The taxpayer is arguing that Metro City's bridge-maintenance budget of $1 million annually for the last ten years is an example of fiscal irresponsibility. The taxpayer believes that a well-run bridge program would spend $15 million a year on maintenance to prevent severe deterioration, which would limit capital expenses for needed bridge reconstruction to $10 million. However, due to Metro City's attempt to economize, they are now faced with spending $400 million over two years on emergency reconstruction of its bridges.

The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1: A well-run bridge program would spend $15 million a year on maintenance, limiting capital expenses for needed bridge reconstruction to $10 million.

Premise 2: Metro City's bridge-maintenance budget has been $1 million annually for the last ten years.

Conclusion: Metro City's bridge-maintenance budget is a prime example of fiscal irresponsibility.

Now, let's discuss the question type and what it's asking us to do. This is a Main Conclusion question, which means we need to identify the main point of the taxpayer's argument.

Let's analyze each answer choice:

a) Metro City should have budgeted substantially more money for maintenance of its bridges.

This answer choice aligns with the taxpayer's argument that a well-run bridge program would spend $15 million a year on maintenance. Although the taxpayer doesn't explicitly say "should," it's implied by their criticism of Metro City's current budget as an example of fiscal irresponsibility. This answer choice is a strong contender.

b) Metro City would have had a well-run bridge program if it had spent more money for reconstruction of its bridges.

This answer choice is incorrect because the taxpayer's argument focuses on the maintenance budget, not on the reconstruction budget. The taxpayer believes that more money should have been spent on maintenance to prevent the need for costly emergency reconstruction.

c) Metro City is spending more than it needs to on maintenance of its bridges.

This answer choice is the opposite of what the taxpayer is arguing. The taxpayer believes that Metro City should have spent more on maintenance, not that they are spending more than necessary.

d) Metro City is economizing on its bridge program to save money in case of emergencies.

This answer choice is not supported by the taxpayer's argument. The taxpayer criticizes Metro City's attempt to economize, but does not suggest that they are doing so to save money for emergencies. In fact, the taxpayer argues that this economizing led to increased emergency reconstruction costs.

e) Metro City has bridges that are more expensive to maintain than they were to build.

This answer choice is out of scope, as the taxpayer's argument does not discuss the cost of building bridges compared to maintaining them.

Based on our analysis, the correct answer is A. Metro City should have budgeted substantially more money for maintenance of its bridges. This answer choice aligns with the taxpayer's argument that a well-run bridge program would have a higher maintenance budget and implies that Metro City should have acted differently to avoid fiscal irresponsibility.