LSAT 142 – Section 2 – Question 06

LSAT 142 - Section 2 - Question 06

December 2014

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

Target time: 1:10

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
PT142 S2 Q06	+LR +Exp	Strengthen +Streng Causal Reasoning +CausR	A 1% 151 B 1% 157 C 96% 164 D 1% 153 E 1% 152	123 132 142	+Easiest	146.338 +SubsectionMedium

Over the last five years, every new major alternative-energy initiative that initially was promised government funding has since seen that funding severely curtailed. In no such case has the government come even close to providing the level of funds initially earmarked for these projects. Since large corporations have made it a point to discourage alternative-energy projects, it is likely that the corporations’ actions influenced the government’s funding decisions.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author hypothesizes that large corporations’ actions to discourage alternative-energy projects have likely influenced the government’s decisions to curtail funding of alternative-energy projects. This is based on the fact that large corporations have made a point to discourage alternative-energy projects.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that there’s no other explanation for the government’s decisions to curtail funding for the alternative-energy projects besides large corporations’ actions.

For the past two decades, most alternative-energy initiatives have received little or no government funding.

This doesn’t shed light on the cause of the lack of government funding. We already know that major alternative-energy intiatives have had government funding curtailed. The issue is whether this is due to large corporations’ actions.

The funding initially earmarked for a government project is always subject to change, given the mechanisms by which the political process operates.

But, is the decision to cut funding to these projects a result of corporations’ actions, or something else? (B) doesn’t help to eliminate other explanations or to affirm the author’s explanation.

The only research projects whose government funding has been severely curtailed are those that large corporations have made it a point to discourage.

This eliminates an alternate explanation that the government was simply cutting funding across the board. (C) establishes a closer connection between having funding cut and corporations’ discouragement.

Some projects encouraged by large corporations have seen their funding severely curtailed over the last five years.

The author never suggested that the government does whatever corporations want. Some projects encouraged by corporations may have had funding cut. That doesn’t impact whether other projects had funding cut because corporations discouraged those projects.

All large corporations have made it a point to discourage some forms of research.

We already know large corporations have discouraged alternative-energy projects. The issue is whether the government’s decision to cut funding to those projects results from the corporations’ actions. (E) doesn’t help affirm that explanation or eliminate other explanations.

LSAT 142 – Section 2 – Question 06

LSAT 142 - Section 2 - Question 06

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 142 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel