Q11 - Unless the residents of Glen Hills band

[noah]

This is a wordy inference question!

We learn the following:

NOT band --> proposal approved --> able to build water sewer

(note that able to build is different than definitely building)

build apts. --> able to build water sewer
build apts. --> new residents --> (PROBABLY crowded schools) + congested roads --> new roads --> more taxes

new residents --> MAYBE destroy rural

A lot of conditional statements, and a couple of wishy-washy connections, which we should remember are NOT definitive.

No point in predicting, let's see what the answers give us:

(A) band --> no apts. this is a negation of a chain that isn't even necessarily intact (we don't know that NOT band --> apartments, just that NOT band --> able to build apartments)

(B) build apts. --> new taxes. Yes! We have this here: build apts. --> new residents --> congested roads --> new roads --> more taxes

(C) NOT proposal approved --> NOT rural destroyed. Nope. We don't know if proposal approve --> rural destroyed. But, more importantly, there could be other ways the rural atmosphere gets destroyed, like cell phone towers.

(D) NOT build apts. --> NOT more taxes. Illegal negation of build apts. --> more taxes.

(E) NOT build apts. --> NOT crowded schools + NOT roads. Negation of what we know will (and probably will) flow from build apartments. All of those consequences could happen for other reasons. Maybe refugees arrive.

[james.h.meyers]

Here's my question:

I went through and eliminated all of the answers. I then went back and chose (B) because it was the best, but it doesn't seem technically accurate.

(B) says that "if developers build apartment houses in Glen Hills there will be substantial tax increases for the residents of Glen Hills."

But the chain of inferences in the stimulus is only probabilistic, not absolute. So I initially eliminated it for being too strong.

Just wondering what I should do or learn from this. I know I've read in some responses that newer tests are more careful in some areas - is this one of them? Or is the best advice still to just read all of the answers and pick the least bad answer?

[sumukh09]

Here's my question:

I went through and eliminated all of the answers. I then went back and chose (B) because it was the best, but it doesn't seem technically accurate.

(B) says that "if developers build apartment houses in Glen Hills there will be substantial tax increases for the residents of Glen Hills."

But the chain of inferences in the stimulus is only probabilistic, not absolute. So I initially eliminated it for being too strong.

Just wondering what I should do or learn from this. I know I've read in some responses that newer tests are more careful in some areas - is this one of them? Or is the best advice still to just read all of the answers and pick the least bad answer?

B is actually inferable, it has to be - this is an inference question.

(1)Residents did not band ---> approved
(2)If approved ---> houses constructed
(3) houses constructed --> attract new residents + new roads built
(4) new roads ---> substantial tax increases

B says: if apartment houses built ---> substantial tax increases

This follows with the chain of inferences above: approved --> houses constructed ---> attract new residents + new roads ---> substantial tax increases

[noah]

Sumukh is right, (B) is inferable. While the population probably would result in overcrowded schools, it "certainly" would result in congested roads leading to new roads, which require substantial tax increases.

[aescano209]

Hey, sorry to revive kind of an old thread, but I was just curious with one thing. With lengthy inference stimuli such as this one, with extensive conditional statements, would it be beneficial to draw it out? I essentially didn't when I did this under timed conditions and did get it right for the right reasons, but I was kind of iffy on the idea of not having it drawn out and eliminating the other answer choices. Did any one else draw it out under timed conditions?

[roflcoptersoisoi]

This question is replete with conditional statements, and I do not think I could have correctly answered it without diagramming them.

I diagrammed like this:

~Band together --> approved --> build w/s

construct apt --> build w/s

construct apt --(probably)--> overcrowded schools

construct apt ---> congestion ----> new roads build ---> tax increase

(A) This just negates the sufficient condition in the first sentence (~Banding together) . No logical inference can be made by negating a sufficient condition, eliminate
(B) Bingo, here is our answer choice. This is the contraction of one of the logical chains we built : apt ---> congestion ----> new roads build ---> tax increase.
(C) All we can conclude from the approval of the rezone is that water and sewer systems will be built.
(D) This is just negating the sufficient condition of some of our conditional statements. We know what occurs if apartments are constructed but not when they are not, because no valid inference can be made from negation a sufficient condition
(E) Same as (D)

I came across this question when I was drilling MBT. This looks like a time trap question given how early it appears in the test. If I came across this question when writing a timed PT I would most likely skip it and come back.

[kkate]

Quick question that came to mind while working on this question - in LSAT terms, is "would" considered as a "will" (ie. 100% certainty) or more as a "could" in that it may or may not?

Thank you in advance!
Kate