LSAT 104 – Section 4 – Question 12

LSAT 104 - Section 4 - Question 12

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: 0:45

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 S4 Q12
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
A
91%
169
B
1%
158
C
1%
157
D
2%
154
E
5%
160
140
148
156
 +Medium 147.438 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

P: Complying with the new safety regulations is useless. Even if the new regulations had been in effect before last year’s laboratory fire, they would not have prevented the fire or the injuries resulting from it because they do not address its underlying causes.

Q: But any regulations that can potentially prevent money from being wasted are useful. If obeyed, the new safety regulations will prevent some accidents, and whenever there is an accident here at the laboratory, money is wasted even if no one is injured.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to P’s claim that complying with the new safety regulations is useless, Q concludes any regulations that potentially prevent money from being wasted are useful. As evidence, Q states that the new safety regulations would prevent some accidents, and money is wasted whenever there is an accident.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Q counters a position held by P. Q does this by expanding the scope of P’s argument. Instead of only narrowly considering whether the new safety regulations would have prevented last year’s fire, Q considers what effect the regulations could have upon all potential accidents.

A
extending the basis for assessing the utility of complying with the new regulations
P’s basis for assessing the utility of compliance is whether the new regulations would have prevented last year’s laboratory fire. Q extends this basis to assessing whether the new regulations would prevent some accidents.
B
citing additional evidence that undermines P’s assessment of the extent to which the new regulations would have prevented injuries in last year’s laboratory fire
Q does not state a position on whether he believes the new regulations would have prevented injuries in last year’s laboratory fire. Q’s argument addresses accidents generally.
C
giving examples to show that the uselessness of all regulations cannot validly be inferred from the uselessness of one particular set of regulations
P’s argument does not conclude that all regulations are useless. P only concludes that the new safety regulations are useless, and Q responds to this narrow conclusion.
D
showing that P’s argument depends on the false assumption that compliance with any regulations that would have prevented last year’s fire would be useful
Q does not point out any false assumptions in P’s argument. Moreover, Q does not state a position on whether he believes the new regulations would have prevented last year’s laboratory fire.
E
pointing out a crucial distinction, overlooked by P, between potential benefits and actual benefits
Q does not explicitly point out a distinction overlooked by P. Rather, Q expands the scope of argument to all regulations instead of just the new safety regulations.

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