LSAT 102 – Section 3 – Question 06

LSAT 102 - Section 3 - Question 06

June 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: 0:54

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
PT102 S3 Q06
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
A
6%
157
B
91%
165
C
2%
157
D
1%
160
E
1%
158
128
139
150
 +Easier 147.613 +SubsectionMedium

Legislator: Your agency is responsible for regulating an industry shaken by severe scandals. You were given funds to hire 500 investigators to examine the scandals, but you hired no more than 400. I am forced to conclude that you purposely limited hiring in an attempt to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed.

Regulator: We tried to hire the 500 investigators but the starting salaries for these positions had been frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The regulator concludes that it was impossible to attract enough qualified investigators. As support, the regulator says that the starting salaries were frozen so low by the legislature that they did not have 500 qualified applicants.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The regulator responds to the legislator’s accusation that the regulation agency purposely limited hiring by highlighting new information that impacts the hiring process. The information raised by the regulator about the low starting salaries provides an alternate explanation that weakens the legislator’s argument. The new information suggests that it was the low salaries, rather than malice by the regulators, that explains the fact that no more than 400 regulators were hired.

A
shifting the blame for the scandals to the legislature
The regulator does not shift blame for the sandals. The regulator does not discuss who is responsible for the scandals referenced by the legislator.
B
providing information that challenges the conclusion drawn by the legislator
The regulator provides new information about the low starting salaries for the positions that challenges the legislator’s conclusion that the low hiring numbers were a result of the regulator’s desire to hide the scandals.
C
claiming that compliance with the legislature’s mandate would have been an insufficient response
The regulator does not address what would have happened if the agency actually had hired 500 investigators. The regulator doesn’t say whether or not that would have been a sufficient response.
D
rephrasing the legislator’s conclusion in terms more favorable to the regulator
The legislator’s conclusion is that the regulator purposely limited hiring in order to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed; the regulator does not rephrase this conclusion at all. The regulator gives a different conclusion.
E
showing that the legislator’s statements are self-contradictory
The regulator does not show that the legislator’s statements are self-contradictory; the regulator raises new information that weakens the legislator’s argument.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply