Q19 - Columnist: A recent study suggests

[tamwaiman]

The question asks us "consistent" "EXCEPT".
I know that (C) contradicts the stimulus.
However, (B)(E) are irrelevant obviously, why not (B)(E)?
Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Ah! it's the definition of "consistent" that you need to focus on. "Consistent" means "could be true." Answer choices that are irrelevant are answer choices that are unrelated, unsupported, and also things that could be true.

Since answer choices (B) and (E) are irrelevant, they too are things that could be true and can be eliminated.

[tamwaiman]

Hi mshermn

Now I know that "consistent" includes "irrelevant" in LSAT.
Thank you very much!

[daisy_dolly2002]

Hey,

I had a question too on this one. Why would choice A not be consistent too? i felt that it was directly the opposite of the conclusion because it said the government should tax for sports equipment, etc.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey sorry, just saw your question!

I can see why answer choice (A) might be tempting. So let's think about this. The principle in answer choice (A) is about paying for one thing by taxing another.

I agree that the recommendation in the stimulus is against taxing something. And answer choice (A) is about taxing something. In that sense, there's a contradiction. But principles are deeper than that. They usually involve linking the evidence with the conclusion or looking at relationships in clever ways.

The principle in the stimulus is about not taxing something to deter its use. Answer choice (A) is about taxing one thing in order to pay for something else. There is no recommendation in the stimulus about not taxing something other than the owning of parrots.

So the principle of answer choice (A) simply isn't addressed by the stimulus. Does that answer your question?

[bigtree65]

I ended up choosing C because it seemed to go completely against the principle in the stimulus while all the others seemed irrelevant. This still caused me a lot of trouble though because I assumed consistent means relevant to or congruent or harmonious with. So for LSATS when I see consistent I should just read it as could be true? Thanks for your post by the way I never would've understood this one without it mshermn.

[nflamel69]

a key reason why A is wrong because the stimulus refers to taxation of things that could cause harm (dangerous) but A only refers to nonessential sport gears or recreational sport gear, no danger is mentioned here

[WaltGrace1983]

I have never seen a question like this before (consistent EXCEPT) so I am going to take this as a learning experience. Let me see if I can understand all of this correctly and I would love some feedback.

No one thinks that the government should impose financial impediments on owning parrots because of this danger
→
Govt. should not impose financial impediments on hunting gear, snow skis, recreational parachutes, or motorcycles.

Here is my first question. Is the argument saying that, because we don't impose taxes on something that is apparently dangerous, we should not impose taxes on other things because of their apparent danger? Do we get this because the stimulus says "by the same token?" I guess so.

I am going to start with my easier eliminations then work from wrong to right.

(B) This is talking about for people who "avoid dangerous activities..." We already know this is out of scope. Because it is out of scope, we know that it could be true. Eliminate.

(D) This not only seems widen the breadth of the conclusion by not limiting it to only "hunting gear, snow skis, recreational activities, or motorcycles," it is definitely consistent with the conclusion by stating that "the government should not create financial disincentives" to do these things. This looks consistent and thus we should eliminate it.

(E) Levying taxes on what? Does it matter what we are levying taxes for? Not really. This is out of scope. Eliminate.

Now I was down to (A) and (C)...

(A) This looked good initially and I picked it. However, I think I see what is wrong. The conclusion in the argument is strictly about taxing something. The conclusion in this answer choice is also about taxing something. Yet the answer choice goes onto to give a reasoning for this taxation, to fund education. In other words, (A) says that taxes are to fund something else. The conclusion says that taxes are just taxes.

(C) I eliminated this because I thought that there was some gap between the hunting gear, snow skies, etc. and being "deemed dangerous" by the govt. Yet upon further review, I think that this is an okay stretch to make because of the phrase "by the same token."

Is this all right?

[mharr]

Hi everyone ,

I would like to offer my reasoning as to why four of the answer choices are incorrect and why one is correct. Feedback is appreciated!

A.) The conclusion is that the government should not tax dangerous activites, so it could tax a non-dangerous activity, such as education, and doing that would be consistent with the conclusion. This answer choice is incorrect.

B.) Since the government should not impose a tax on equipment used in dangerous activities then people who avoid dangerous activities should not be taxed either. This is consistent with the conclusion. This answer choice is incorrect.

C.) This answer choice violates the conclusion that the government should not tax (which is a financial disincentive) dangerous activities. This is the correct answer.

D.) This answer choice logically follows the conclusion that the government should not impose a tax on equipment used in dangerous activities. A tax is an example of a financial disincentive. This answer choice is incorrect.

E.) Seems to be logically consistent with the conclusion because this answer choice does not mention levying a tax on dangerous activities in order to obtain money to provide food and shelter. The government can levy taxes on other things; just not dangerous ones. This answer choice is incorrect.

[donghai819]

I would like to think question in abstract way.

A causes some harm. Government shouldn't impede A. Therefore, government shouldn't impede similar things, like B, C, D.

C says that government should discourage something because it causes some harm.


When I see "consistent except", I expect the correct answer to be completely inconsistent with the original argument. Because unlike "could be true" vs. "must be false", or "could be false" vs. "must be false", the exact meaning of "consistent except" is not crystal clear.