LSAT 124 – Section 2 – Question 04

LSAT 124 - Section 2 - Question 04

December 2007

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

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
PT124 S2 Q04	+LR +Exp	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC	A 7% 156 B 2% 155 C 86% 163 D 0% 151 E 5% 160	120 135 151	+Easier	145.571 +SubsectionMedium

Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our factory pose a health risk to those living downwind. The only testimony presented in support of this contention comes from residents of the communities surrounding the factory. But only a trained scientist can determine whether or not these emissions are dangerous, and none of the residents are scientists. Hence our factory’s emissions present no health risk.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The industrialist concludes that his factory’s emissions are not a health risk to nearby residents. He supports this by saying that the only testimony about the emissions comes from local residents, but only a trained scientist can assess the danger, and none of the residents are scientists.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The industrialist’s reasoning is flawed because he fails to provide any evidence for his conclusion. Even if the residents’ testimonies cannot prove that the emissions are a health risk, the industrialist still needs to provide evidence for the conclusion that the emissions are not a health risk.

In other words, he assumes that the environmentalists’ conclusion is false simply because their support is weak.

impugns the motives of the residents rather than assessing the reasons for their contention

This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the person or group making the argument, rather than the argument itself. The industrialist doesn’t make this mistake. He attacks his opponents’ support and doesn’t make any assumptions about their motives.

does not consider the safety of emissions from other sources in the area

The argument is only about the safety of emissions from the industrialist’s factory. Emissions from any other sources are irrelevant.

presents no testimony from scientists that the emissions are safe

The industrialist fails to provide any evidence for his conclusion that the emissions are safe. He claims that only scientists can testify that the emissions are safe, but he never actually presents any scientists’ testimonies.

fails to discuss the benefits of the factory to the surrounding community

The industrialist only concludes that the factory’s emissions do not present a health risk. He doesn’t need to discuss any benefits of the factory to the community.

equivocates between two different notions of the term “health risk”

The industrialist doesn’t make this mistake. He uses the term “health risk” clearly and consistently throughout his argument.

LSAT 124 – Section 2 – Question 04

LSAT 124 - Section 2 - Question 04

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 124 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel