LSAT 122 – Section 1 – Question 25

LSAT 122 - Section 1 - Question 25

June 2006

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:01

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
PT122 S1 Q25
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
15%
159
B
76%
164
C
3%
155
D
3%
156
E
3%
153
142
152
162
 +Medium 146.495 +SubsectionMedium

Gas station owner: Increased fuel efficiency reduces air pollution and dependence on imported oil, which has led some people to suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency. But smaller cars are more likely to be seriously damaged in collisions and provide less protection for their occupants. Greater fuel efficiency is not worth the added risk to human lives; therefore, manufacturers should not seek to increase fuel efficiency.

A
presumes, without providing justification, that it would be impossible to reduce the likelihood of dangerous accidents for small cars
The gas station owner never assumes this. In fact, she’s not talking about the likelihood of getting into an accident at all. She just claims that, when they are in accidents, smaller cars are more likely to be seriously damaged and so they pose a risk to human lives.
B
concludes, on the basis of the claim that one means to an end is unacceptable, that the end should not be pursued
The owner concludes, on the basis of the claim that making cars smaller to make them more fuel efficient is unacceptable, that manufacturers shouldn’t pursue increased fuel efficiency at all. But perhaps there are other ways to increase fuel efficiency that are perfectly safe.
C
draws a conclusion about what should be done from premises all of which are about factual matters only
The gas station owner does draw a conclusion about what should be done, but her premises are not all about factual matters only. The premise “greater fuel efficiency is not worth the added risk to human lives” is subjective.
D
presupposes the truth of what it sets out to prove
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, in which the conclusion merely restates a premise. The gas station owner doesn’t make this mistake; her premises and conclusion are distinct.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that increasing fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce air pollution
The gas station owner says that increasing fuel efficiency reduces air pollution, but she never assumes that it’s the only way to reduce air pollution.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 122 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply