LSAT 149 – Section 4 – Question 14

LSAT 149 - Section 4 - Question 14

December 2017

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
PT149 S4 Q14
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
3%
156
B
94%
163
C
2%
157
D
0%
145
E
0%
148
124
135
145
 +Easier 147.325 +SubsectionMedium

Columnist: Wildlife activists have proposed that the practice of stringing cable TV lines from the same poles that carry electric power lines should be banned because cable TV lines, while electrically neutral themselves, make it easier for animals to climb near electric power lines, risking electrocution. This particular argument for banning the practice fails, however, since some animals are electrocuted by power lines even where cable TV lines are all underground.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The columnist concludes that, although animals are at higher risk of electrocution when cable TV lines are strung alongside electric power lines, this fact alone doesn’t show that cable TV lines should be put elsewhere. As a premise, the columnist states that putting cable TV lines elsewhere wouldn’t fully eliminate the electrocution problem, since some animals are electrocuted by power lines even without the help of cable TV lines.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The columnist argues that, although an intended solution to a problem will help alleviate the problem, said alleviation isn’t a good enough reason to take that action, because it won’t entirely eliminate the problem. This reasoning is flawed, because alleviating a problem can be a very good reason to take an action, even if the action won’t completely solve the problem!

A
It takes a sufficient condition for an argument’s being inadequate to be a necessary condition for its being inadequate.
The columnist’s reason for the argument’s inadequacy is neither sufficient nor necessary for the argument to be inadequate, so we’re not dealing with a flaw of sufficiency vs. necessity.
B
It rejects an argument for a proposal merely on the grounds that the proposal would not completely eliminate the problem it is intended to address.
The columnist rejects the wildlife activists’ proposal solely because it won’t completely stop animals from being electrocuted by power lines. But the proposal would still lead to fewer animal electrocutions, which could be reason enough to adopt it!
C
It fails to consider the additional advantageous effects that a proposal to address a problem might have.
The columnist did not say that the proposal shouldn’t be adopted, just that it shouldn’t be adopted based on the wildlife activists’ argument. There was therefore no need to consider any possible additional advantageous effects.
D
It rejects an argument by criticizing the argument’s proponents rather than by criticizing its substance.
The columnist does not criticize the wildlife activists.
E
It rejects a proposal to address a problem merely on the grounds that other proposals to address the problem would also be effective.
The columnist does not mention any other proposals for addressing animal electrocutions by power lines.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 149 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply