Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardPrinciple Questions

The municipal planning commission recently approved the demolition of the century-old Southside Transit Hub to construct a subsidized housing complex. While local historians argued the hub possesses significant architectural heritage, the commission concluded that preserving the structure is not ethically mandated. They reasoned that the annual cost to stabilize the transit hub vastly exceeds the city’s allocated preservation budget, and addressing the acute shortage of affordable housing represents an immediate, critical civic priority.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the municipal planning commission's decision?

  1. A
    If an architectural structure's preservation is not ethically mandated, then its maintenance costs must exceed municipal allocations and there must be competing critical civic priorities.
  2. B
    Whenever a municipality faces a critical shortage of affordable housing, civic authorities ought to suspend all historical preservation initiatives that require municipal funding.
  3. C
    The only way to justify the demolition of a structure possessing architectural heritage is to demonstrate that its maintenance would exceed the city's allocated preservation budget.
  4. An architectural structure's preservation is ethically mandated only if its maintenance costs fall within existing municipal allocations or there are no competing critical civic priorities.Answer
  5. E
    Any historical structure whose stabilization costs exceed the designated municipal budget should be immediately demolished, regardless of its architectural significance.

Answer

The principle stating that preservation is ethically mandated only if maintenance costs fall within allocations or there are no competing critical priorities.
To justify the commission's decision, we need a rule stating that when maintenance exceeds the budget AND there is a critical civic priority, preservation is NOT ethically mandated. The correct answer provides this exact logical relationship through its contrapositive. It states: Ethically Mandated -> (Costs within Budget OR No Competing Priorities). Applying De Morgan's laws to negate the necessary condition gives the contrapositive: (Costs Exceed Budget AND Competing Priorities Exist) -> NOT Ethically Mandated. This directly links the commission's premises to their conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The commission concluded that preserving the structure is not ethically mandated.
To justify an argument, we must first isolate exactly what claim needs to be proven.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Premise 1: Stabilization costs exceed the preservation budget. Premise 2: Affordable housing is an immediate, critical civic priority.
The correct principle must logically connect these specific premises to the conclusion.
3
Formulate a conditional rule that bridges the premises to the conclusion.
If (Costs > Budget) AND (Critical Priority Exists) -> THEN (Preservation is NOT ethically mandated).
A justifying principle operates as a sufficient assumption that guarantees the conclusion when the premises are met.
4
Evaluate the options for a logical match, including contrapositive forms.
The correct option states: Ethically Mandated -> (Costs within budget OR No critical priorities). By taking the contrapositive, we get: NOT (Costs within budget OR No critical priorities) -> NOT Ethically Mandated. This translates precisely to our formulated rule.
LSAT principle questions often present the correct rule in its logically equivalent contrapositive form to increase difficulty.

Key Concept

Principle Application and Conditional Logic
Rate this question

Topics

Principle Questions

More questions from this topic