LSAT 152 – Section 2 – Question 11

LSAT 152 - Section 2 - Question 11

November 2018

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:47

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
PT152 S2 Q11
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
1%
150
B
1%
150
C
2%
149
D
2%
152
E
95%
163
134
140
147
 +Easier 147.463 +SubsectionMedium

Last year the Lalolah River was ranked by the Sunvale Water Commission as the most polluted of the fifteen rivers in the Sunvale Water District. Measures taken to clean up the river must be working, though, since this year the Lalolah River is ranked as only the third most polluted river in the district.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that the efforts to clean the Lalolah River are working. He supports this by saying that the river was ranked the third most polluted this year, while it was ranked the most polluted last year.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the flaw of confusing relative and absolute change. The author shows that the Lalolah River is less polluted this year than the top two most polluted rivers, and then assumes that it’s cleaner than it was last year. But just because the Lalolah River is less polluted than other rivers doesn’t mean that it’s actually gotten less polluted.

The other rivers might have just gotten much dirtier, while the Lalolah River stayed the same. If so, the author can’t conclude that the cleanup efforts are working.

A
interprets lack of evidence for a claim as support for an opposing claim
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that an opponent’s conclusion is false, simply because their argument lacks evidence. The author doesn’t make this mistake; he isn’t countering someone else’s position or supporting an opposing claim at all.
B
relies on an ambiguity in the expression “most polluted”
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the argument uses the same term in different ways. The author doesn’t make this mistake. He may not explain the exact meaning of “most polluted,” but he does use the term clearly and consistently throughout his argument.
C
does not disclose the basis for the ranking used
The author doesn’t need to explain how the pollution rankings are determined. Even if he did, his argument would still be flawed because he confuses the river being cleaner than other rivers with it being cleaner overall.
D
confuses the state of the individual rivers in the water district with that of the water district as a whole
The author never makes any claims about the state of the water district as a whole. Instead, he confuses the state of the Lalolah River compared to other rivers with the state of the Lalolah River this year compared to last year.
E
equates a decrease relative to the other ranked rivers with an absolute decrease
Just because the Lalolah River is less polluted than two other rivers does not mean that it’s less polluted than it was last year. Maybe the other rivers just got dirtier.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 152 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply