LSAT 104 – Section 1 – Question 13

LSAT 104 - Section 1 - Question 13

December 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:22

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT104 S1 Q13
+LR
Necessary assumption +NA
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
3%
160
B
1%
162
C
94%
168
D
2%
159
E
0%
141
129
139
149
 +Easier 149.106 +SubsectionMedium

Problems caused by the leaching of pollutants from dumps and landfills are worst in countries with an annual per capita economic output of $4,000 to $5,000, and less severe for considerably poorer and considerably richer countries. This is so because pollution problems increase during the early stages of a country’s industrial development but then diminish as increasing industrial development generates adequate resources to tackle such problems. Therefore, problems caused by such leaching in Country X, where the annual per capita economic output is now $5,000, should begin to diminish in the next few years.

Summary
Over the next few years, pollutant leaching in Country X will probably cause fewer problems. Why? Because pollutant leaching causes the most problems for countries in the same GDP range as Country X. This is because poorer, less-developed countries generate fewer pollutants, while richer, more-developed countries are more able to prevent pollution problems.

Notable Assumptions
For Country X’s pollutant problems to decrease, based on the premises it would have to change its level of development. There’s no indication that countries even can decrease their level of development so much that they stop producing pollutants, so the argument must assume that Country X will increase its development level within the next few years.

A
Within the next few years, Country X will impose a system of fines for illegal waste disposal by its industrial companies.
The argument never mentions fines, and definitely doesn’t depend on them. There’s also no reason for us to think that this is the only possible way for Country X to reduce its level of pollution problems.
B
Countries surrounding Country X will reduce the amount of pollution that their factories release into the air and water.
This is irrelevant. The argument isn’t concerned with countries surrounding Country X, and in fact specifically talks about pollutants leaching from dumps and landfills, rather than air and water pollution generally.
C
Industrial development in Country X will increase in the next few years.
In other words, Country X will move out of the “danger zone” of development where it’s producing pollutants but can’t yet deal with them. If we were to negate this, and assume instead that Country X wouldn’t increase development, the argument would fall apart.
D
Country X will begin the process of industrialization in the next few years.
First, the argument strongly implies that Country X has already begun the process of industrial development. Second, we know that starting industrialization increases pollution problems. So this just contradicts the argument.
E
No other country with a similar amount of industrial development has pollution problems that are as severe as those in Country X.
The argument is just saying that Country X will reduce its level of pollution problems. How the severity of those problems compares to other countries is irrelevant.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 104 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply