LSAT 107 – Section 3 – Question 13

LSAT 107 - Section 3 - Question 13

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: 1:19

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 Q13
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Net Effect +NetEff
A
2%
157
B
6%
162
C
88%
167
D
2%
158
E
3%
160
130
142
154
 +Medium 148.579 +SubsectionMedium

Charles: During recessions unemployment typically rises. Thus, during a recession air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases, since fewer people commute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Darla: Why think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Darla questions Charles’s claim that air pollution from automobile exhaust decreases during a recession. As evidence, she points out that during a recession fewer people can afford to buy new cars. Moreover the older the car, the more pollutants that car emits.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Darla’s response weakens the relationship between Charles’s evidence and his hypothesis. She does this by pointing out a fact Charles’s argument does not account for: people buy fewer new cars during a recession and older cars tend to emit more pollutants.

A
It calls into question the truth of the premises that Charles uses to support his conclusion.
Darla does not question Charles’s premises. She does not deny that unemployment typically rises during a recession, and she does not deny that during a recession fewer people commute in cars to jobs.
B
It makes an additional claim that can be true only if Charles’s conclusion is false.
Darla’s claims do not contradict Charles’s conclusion. She questions Charles’s conclusion, but this is not the same as disproving Charles’s conclusion.
C
It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Charles’s conclusion by his evidence.
The additional consideration is that during a recession fewer people buy new cars, and older cars tend to emit more pollutants.
D
It argues that Charles’s conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Charles gives to support that conclusion.
Darla does not argue for the truth of Charles’s conclusion. In fact, she questions why Charles’s hypothesis would follow from his premises.
E
It presents an argument showing that the premises in Charles’s argument support an absurd conclusion that Charles has overlooked.
Darla’s claims point to a consideration Charles’s argument has overlooked, but she does not point to a conclusion that Charles has overlooked.

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