Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: If we let neighbors have the final say, no new nightclubs will ever open because the people living nearby will always complain about the late hours.

Conclusion: A city will never be able to open new nightclubs if local neighborhoods are permitted to block them.

Reasoning: Nightclubs are generally disliked by their neighbors because they stay open late, and neighborhood opposition can be detrimental to city development.

Analysis: The argument makes a very strong, absolute claim: that *no* new nightclubs will *ever* open. For this to be true, it must be the case that every single potential location for a nightclub has neighbors who would oppose it. If there were even one spot in the city with no neighbors to complain—like an isolated industrial park—the argument's 'never' would fall apart. Look for an assumption that addresses this lack of neighbor-free zones or the universality of neighborly spite.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

14.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

Correct Answer
C
The argument needs the assumption that a city’s never getting new nightclubs is a bad thing; otherwise the example does not show that neighborhood antagonism can be harmful. Negation test: If it’s not bad, the example doesn’t establish harm, undermining the conclusion.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep