LSAT Explanation PT 31, S2, Q24: Town councillor: The only reason for

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following principles, if established, would provide the strongest support for the town councillor's argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Principle question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the town councillor's argument. The town councillor believes that the town should not pass an ordinance prohibiting skateboarding in River Park. The reason for this belief is that if children cannot skateboard in the park, they will most likely skateboard in the streets, which is even more dangerous than skateboarding in the park. The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise: Skateboarding in River Park is dangerous.

Premise: If children cannot skateboard in the park, they will skateboard in the streets.

Premise: Skateboarding in the streets is more dangerous than skateboarding in the park.

Conclusion: The town should not pass an ordinance prohibiting skateboarding in River Park.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is it true that if children cannot skateboard in the park, they will skateboard in the streets?"

Now, let's discuss the question type and answer choices. The question type is Principle, which means we need to find the principle that best supports the town councillor's argument. The correct answer is E.

A) This answer choice says that ordinances should not be passed unless the activities pose a danger to participants. While the conclusion of "should not be passed" matches the argument's conclusion, the sufficient condition does not match the argument. We know that skateboarding does pose a danger to the town's inhabitants, so this answer choice does not support the argument.

B) This answer choice introduces the concept of legal liability, which is not present in the town councillor's argument. The principle assumed in the argument does not rest on legal liability, so this answer choice is out of scope.

C) This answer choice suggests that the regulation of children's recreational activities should be left to the discretion of the children's parents. While this may be a valid point, it does not directly support the town councillor's argument about whether or not to pass an ordinance. It also introduces the concept of the "level of skill" of a skateboarder, which is not part of the original argument.

D) This answer choice is tempting, but it is actually the opposite of what the town councillor's argument needs. It says that if an activity is dangerous, then an ordinance should be enacted. The argument, however, is saying that an ordinance should not be enacted even though skateboarding is dangerous. This answer choice does not support the argument.

E) This answer choice states that ordinances should not be enacted if their enactment would lead to greater dangers than those they seek to eliminate. This principle aligns perfectly with the town councillor's argument: enacting an ordinance prohibiting skateboarding in River Park would lead to greater dangers (skateboarding in the streets) than those it seeks to eliminate (skateboarding in the park). Thus, this principle provides the strongest support for the town councillor's argument.