LSAT Explanation PT 27, S4, Q4: Mayor: Citing the severity of the

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following is assumed by the mayor's argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Necessary Assumption question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's break down the passage and analyze the argument. The mayor presents the following argument:

Premise 1: The city road commissioner suggests using rubberized asphalt for paving roads, which would make ice removal easier and less of a strain on the road-maintenance budget.

Premise 2: Rubberized asphalt is more expensive than plain asphalt.

Premise 3: The city's budget for building and maintaining roads cannot be increased.

Conclusion: The commissioner's suggestion is not financially feasible.

The question type for this problem is Necessary Assumption, which means we need to find an assumption that the mayor's argument relies on for the conclusion to be valid.

Now let's evaluate the argument by asking an "Evaluate" question: "Would the savings in the cost of ice removal be enough to cover the increased expense of using rubberized asphalt to pave roads?"

With this question in mind, let's analyze each answer choice:

a) Using rubberized asphalt to pave roads would not have any advantages besides facilitating the removal of ice on roads.

This answer choice is too extreme. Even if rubberized asphalt has other advantages, the mayor's argument is focused on whether it is financially feasible with the current budget. The presence of other advantages does not necessarily affect the financial aspect of the argument.

b) The severity of winters in the region in which the city is located does not vary significantly from year to year.

This answer choice is out of scope. The argument is about the financial feasibility of using rubberized asphalt, not the consistency of winter weather. The severity of winters does not directly impact the financial aspect of the argument.

c) It would cost more to add particles of rubber to asphalt than to add particles of rubber to other materials that are used to pave roads.

This answer choice is also out of scope. The mayor's argument is comparing the cost of rubberized asphalt to plain asphalt, not other paving materials. The cost of adding rubber to other materials is not relevant to the argument.

d) Savings in the cost of ice removal would not pay for the increased expense of using rubberized asphalt to pave roads.

This answer choice directly addresses our "Evaluate" question. If the savings in ice removal costs would not cover the increased expense of using rubberized asphalt, then the argument is valid. This assumption is necessary for the mayor's conclusion to be true.

e) The techniques the city currently uses for removing ice from city roads are not the least expensive possible, given the type of road surface in place.

This answer choice is out of scope. The argument is about the financial feasibility of using rubberized asphalt, not the efficiency of current ice removal techniques. The cost of current ice removal techniques does not directly impact the financial aspect of the argument.

In conclusion, the correct answer is (d) "Savings in the cost of ice removal would not pay for the increased expense of using rubberized asphalt to pave roads." This assumption is necessary for the mayor's argument to be valid.