LSAT 107 – Section 3 – Question 11

LSAT 107 - Section 3 - Question 11

October 1999

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:02

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
PT107 S3 Q11
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
A
1%
156
B
7%
161
C
1%
149
D
1%
154
E
90%
167
130
141
152
 +Easier 148.579 +SubsectionMedium

Astronomer: Astronomical observatories in many areas have become useless because light from nearby cities obscures the stars. Many people argue that since streetlights are needed for safety, such interference from lights is inevitable. Here in Sandsville, however, the local observatory’s view remains relatively clear, since the city has restricted unnecessary lighting and installed special street lamps that direct all their light downward. It is therefore possible to have both well-lighted streets and relatively dark skies.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The astronomer considers an argument held by many people and concludes that it is possible to have both well-lighted streets and relatively dark skies. As evidence, the astronomer points out that in Sandsville the local observatory’s view is clear because the city has both restricted unnecessary lighting and installed street lamps that direct all light downward.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The astronomer counters a position held by others. She does this by offering a counterexample. It is not true that interference from lights is inevitable because in Sandsville relatively dark skies are achieved by restricting unnecessary lighting and installing special street lamps.

A
appealing to a scientific authority to challenge a widely held belief
The astronomer does not appeal to a scientific authority. We cannot assume that just because the argument is made by an astronomer that the argument appeals to scientific authority.
B
questioning the accuracy of evidence given in support of the opposing position
The astronomer does not question that streetlights are needed for safety. The astronomer addresses the conclusion believed by others, not their premises.
C
proposing an alternative scientific explanation for a natural phenomenon
The astronomer does not propose an alternative explanation for light interference.
D
making a distinction between terms
The astronomer does not distinguish any terms.
E
offering a counterexample to a general claim
The general claim is other people’s argument that interference from light is inevitable. The counterexample the astronomer offers is the city of Sandsville, which does not experience light interference.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 107 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply