LSAT 105 – Section 4 – Question 20

LSAT 105 - Section 4 - Question 20

February 1999

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

Target time: 1:12

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
PT105 S4 Q20	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method	A 5% 158 B 0% C 7% 159 D 87% 167 E 1% 156	137 147 156	+Medium	144.839 +SubsectionEasier

James: Chemists have recently invented a new technique for extracting rhodium, an element necessary for manufacturing catalytic converters for automobiles, from nuclear waste. Catalytic converters function to remove noxious gases from automobile exhaust. The use of nuclear power is therefore contributing in at least one way to creating a cleaner environment.

Marta: The technique you mention, though effective, is still at an experimental stage, so there has been no shift in the sources of the rhodium currently used in manufacturing catalytic converters.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

In response to James’s claim that nuclear power has contributed to creating a cleaner environment, Marta concludes that there has been no shift to extract rhodium from nuclear waste in order to manufacture catalytic converters. As evidence, Marta points out that the technique is still in an experimental stage.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Marta counters the position held by James. She does this by pointing out something that James did not consider about the technique he describes. If the technique is still in its experimental stages, then it is unlikely that nuclear power has had any effect on the process of extracting rhodium yet.

casting doubt on the accuracy of the claims made by James in support of his conclusion

Marta does not doubt the accuracy of James’s premises. In fact, she concedes that the technique James mentions is effective.

questioning the credibility of advocates of nuclear power

There are no arguments from advocates of nuclear power in the stimulus. We cannot assume James is such an advocate for endorsing the technique he describes. Moreover, Marta does not question anybody’s credibility.

indicating that James is assuming the truth of the conclusion that he intends to establish

James’s argument is not circular. He is not assuming that nuclear power is contributing to a cleaner environment. What James is assuming is that the technique he describes is already being put to use. Marta is attacking this assumption by stating the technique is experimental.

pointing out a fact that James, in drawing his conclusion, did not take into account

The fact James’s fails to take into account is that the technique he describes is still in an experimental stage. Just because the technique was discovered and is possible to implement does not mean it is actually being implemented.

pointing out that James’s premises are no more plausible than is his conclusion

Marta does not doubt the plausibility of James’s premises. In fact, she concedes that the technique James mentions is effective.

LSAT 105 – Section 4 – Question 20

LSAT 105 - Section 4 - Question 20

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel