Q12 - Regina: The additional revenue obtained

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
ID the Disagreement

Stimulus Breakdown:
Regina's Conclusion: The additional revenue obtained from leasing government-owned toll bridges to private investors won't be used to reduce shortfalls in other budget areas.
Regina's Evidence: The additional revenue will be allocated to the transportation budget.

Amal's Conclusion: The new revenue will help reduce shortfalls in other areas.
Amal's evidence: Allocating the new revenue to transportation will free up existing transportation funds to be used in other areas.

Answer Anticipation:
In both arguments, the arguers agree that the new money will go into the transportation budget. But they don't seem to agree on what that means regarding the other budget areas. Regina's argument assumes that the entire transportation budget will be spent on transportation - old money and new money alike. Amal's argument assumes that adding new money to the transportation budget will allow the old money to come out and be used for other things. These two assumptions are in conflict with one another, so predict an answer choice that addresses that conflict.

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
(A) If we asked both speakers if there will be shortfalls in areas other than transportation, they would both say yes, so this isn't a point of disagreement.

(B) Adequacy isn't addressed by either speaker, so this one is out.

(C) Whether the money should or should not be allocated to transportation isn't addressed by these speakers either. Don't mistake Regina's position that allocating it to transportation won't reduce other shortfalls to mean that she doesn't support allocation to transportation. Neither should we read Amal's argument as an endorsement.

(D) Aha! Here's our prephrase. If you asked Regina whether exiting transportation funds will be reallocated to other areas, she would say no. If you asked Amal the same question, he would say yes. That makes this a point of disagreement and our correct answer.

(E) Is reducing budget shortfalls a financial benefit to the government? Maybe…it is in the real world but this hasn't been established in LSAT world, which should give us pause. But even if we do allow it, there's still grounds for elimination here. While Amal would agree that the leases will reduce budget shortfalls in multiple areas, Regina would nonetheless agree that the leases will reduce budget shortfalls in one area: transportation. That means the speakers don't disagree, and we can eliminate the answer.

Takeaway/Pattern:
For ID the Disagreement questions, the first step is always to try to pinpoint the disagreement in prephrasing. If two speakers agree on the premise of the argument but reach a different conclusion, that disagreement must be something that the speakers assume. But even if you're unable to pinpoint the disagreement in prephrasing, you still have a powerful tool for evaluating answers: the Interview technique. Rephrase each answer as a yes or no a question and pose it to the two speakers. The one to which one speaker answers yes and the other no is the right answer.

#officialexplanation