LSAT 107 – Section 4 – Question 14

LSAT 107 - Section 4 - Question 14

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: 1:06

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 S4 Q14
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Net Effect +NetEff
A
80%
166
B
2%
160
C
4%
158
D
4%
157
E
10%
160
136
148
159
 +Medium 141.321 +SubsectionEasier

Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide our copper-smelting plant releases into the atmosphere by using a new process. The new process requires replacing our open furnaces with closed ones and moving the copper from one furnace to the next in solid, not molten, form. However, not only is the new equipment expensive to buy and install, but the new process also costs more to run than the current process, because the copper must be reheated after it has cooled. So overall, adopting the new process will cost much but bring the company no profit.

Supervisor: I agree with your overall conclusion, but disagree about one point you make, since the latest closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.

A
The overall conclusion is about a net effect but is based solely on evidence about only some of the factors that contribute to the effect.
The plant manager’s argument is vulnerable to this criticism. Just because adopting the new process would have some costly aspects, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the new process would bring the company no profit.
B
The support for the overall conclusion is the authority of the plant manager rather than any independently verifiable evidence.
The plant manager never cites his authority as support for his conclusion. He cites the costs associated with adopting the new process.
C
The overall conclusion reached merely repeats the evidence offered.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning. The plant manager doesn’t make this mistake. Instead, the plant manager overlooks the possibility that the financial benefits of the new process could outweigh the cost and bring the company a profit.
D
Evidence that is taken to be only probably true is used as the basis for a claim that something is definitely true.
The author doesn’t cite any probably true evidence. He only cites definitely true facts, but those facts aren’t sufficient to prove his conclusion.
E
Facts that are not directly relevant to the argument are treated as if they supported the overall conclusion.
The fact about the sulfur dioxide output of the plant is the only fact the plant manager mentions that isn’t directly relevant to the overall conclusion of the argument, but that fact isn’t treated as if it supports the overall conclusion.

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