LSAT 13 – Section 4 – Question 03
LSAT 13 - Section 4 - Question 03
December 1994You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 0:56
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT13 S4 Q03 |
+LR
| Main conclusion or main point +MC | A
1%
154
B
0%
157
C
3%
162
D
96%
168
E
0%
158
|
120 129 141 |
+Easiest | 145.536 +SubsectionMedium |
This is a main conclusion question, which we can tell from the question stem, “The main point in Kim’s argument is that...”
Kim opens their argument with a statement about a claim from other people, stating that electric cars running on batteries might pose a solution to air pollution. Then, Kim adds in their take on that claim: apparently “some people” conveniently forgot about how batteries recharge, via electricity. Most of which comes from burning fossil fuels, which also pollutes the air. Kim says that because the electricity-generating facilities we have right now are at capacity, if we want more electric cars on the road, we would have to build more of those facilities. Alright, now were getting to Kim’s point, led in with “so” (a common conclusion indicator) to the extreme of the electric car proposal: even if we replaced literally all of the gas cars with electric ones, we’d just be trading of one form of air pollution for another. Looks like that’s our conclusion! In other words, Kim is saying battery-powered electric cars won’t actually solve the pollution issue as they’ll just contribute to it by different means.
Answer choice (A) says that Kim’s main conclusion is that to build more electric cars we need to build more electricity generating facilities. That was stated in the argument, but it was just one piece of support that made Kim’s final conclusion more likely to be true. It can’t be our answer, then, because it’s just a premise.
Answer choice (B) comes totally out of left field. Did Kim ever go as far as saying it’s absolutely necessary for people to just drive less to reduce air pollution? Goodness no, they’re just saying electric cars aren’t a great solution.
Answer choice (C) is not stated in the argument either. Can we point to any place in the stimulus where Kim claims that all types of cars are equally bad for air pollution? Nope.
Correct Answer choice (D) looks like a perfect rephrase of our prediction. Although it may not be stated word-for-word in the argument, there’s no way it’s not Kim’s main point. Why would Kim have said everything they did, ending on the note that electric cars are just an exchange of one form of pollution for another, if they didn’t think that battery-powered cars were not a viable solution as (D) states? This is our winner!
Answer choice (E) also goes too far and was never stated or supported in the argument. We don’t know if Kim thinks gas-powered cars are here to stay, we just know they don’t think electric cars are a viable solution.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 13 Explanations
Section 1 - Logic Games
Section 2 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Section 3 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.