LSAT 124 – Section 3 – Question 02

LSAT 124 - Section 3 - Question 02

December 2007

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

Target time: 0:41

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 S3 Q02	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Eliminating Options +ElimOpt	A 0% 149 B 2% 151 C 98% 164 D 0% 148 E 0% 151	129 136 142	+Easier	145.896 +SubsectionMedium

Since the 1970s, environmentalists have largely succeeded in convincing legislators to enact extensive environmental regulations. Yet, as environmentalists themselves not only admit but insist, the condition of the environment is worsening, not improving. Clearly, more environmental regulations are not the solution to the environment’s problems.

attacks the environmentalists themselves instead of their positions

Although the author mentions the environmentalists have insisted upon something, that isn’t an attack on the environmentalists’ character, background, or behavior. The premises simply point out that regulations have been passed, and the environment has declined during that time.

presumes, without providing warrant, that only an absence of environmental regulations could prevent environmental degradation

The author doesn’t indicate that removing regulations are the only way to prevent further decline. The conclusion is is merely that more environmental regulations aren’t going to help. Perhaps keeping the same level of regulations and doing something else is the solution.

fails to consider the possibility that the condition of the environment would have worsened even more without environmental regulations

The author fails to consider that the environment could have worsened even more without the regulations that were passed. In other words, the regulations could have helped the environment, even if the environment worsened.

fails to justify its presumption that reducing excessive regulations is more important than preserving the environment

The author doesn’t advocate for reducing regulations. The conclusion is merely that more regulations will not help. Also, the argument isn’t based on the “importance” of one thing over another thing.

fails to consider the views of the environmentalists’ opponents

The argument doesn’t need to consider the views of the environmentalists’ opponents. There’s nothing flawed about making an argument without considering other groups’ views.

The question stem reads: The argument's reasoning is flawed because of the argument… This is a Flaw question.

The author describes how since the 1970s, environmentalists have successfully gotten lawmakers to enact extensive environmental regulations. However, the author also notes that the environment has not improved; it has gotten worse. The author concludes that more environmental regulations are not the solution to the problem. The author believes that because the environment is worsening, the regulations must not positively affect the environment. In other words, the regulations are not causing the environment to get better.

However, we do not know all of the problems affecting the environment. It is possible that the regulations positively impact the environment, but the positive impacts are overshadowed by the other events harming the environment. Imagine we enacted environmental regulations to ban disposable straws. At the same time, we doubled the amount of coal-fired electricity plants. The straw regulations have a positive effect, saving many tortoises, but the harm caused by the coal outpaces the positive effects of the straw regulation. The author would argue that more regulations are not the solution, but we could easily say that we need to regulate the coal-fire-powered plants. So the author has failed to consider that there might be other events causing harm to the environment.

Answer Choice (A) is incorrect because it is not our identified causation flaw. There is no attack on the environmentalists. In fact, he uses their own words to lend credibility to his argument.

Answer Choice (B) is not presumed the by the author. At no point does the author's argument presume zero regulations are required to prevent environmental degradation can be prevented. The author could say that the regulations are simply ineffective and that whether we have them makes no difference to the environment.

Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we paraphrased. The author does fail to consider the possibility that the regulations are having a positive effect. Without the positive effects of the regulations, the environment could have gotten worse.

Answer Choice (D) is not presumed by the argument. The author does not claim reducing regulation is more important than protecting the environment.

Answer Choice (E) is wrong. While the author does not consider the view of the environmentalist's opponents, that is not the argument's flaw.

LSAT 124 – Section 3 – Question 02

LSAT 124 - Section 3 - Question 02

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