LSAT 1 – Section 3 – Question 09
LSAT 1 - Section 3 - Question 09
June 1991You 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT1 S3 Q09 |
+LR
| Weaken +Weak | A
63%
162
B
5%
152
C
5%
148
D
24%
153
E
2%
148
|
140 151 163 |
+Medium | 148.102 +SubsectionMedium |
This is a weakening question, since the stem says: Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
The first thing we learn is that the fines for environmentally damaging accidents are so high that it is cheaper to prevent an accident than it is to deal with the results. The second sentence begins with the conclusion indicator therefore, and concludes that businesses will now invest in preventing accidents. This sentence has a little clause in between commas with the support indicator since, which introduces the final piece of support which is that businesses care about money. It makes intuitive sense, if accidents are going to lose you a lot of money in fines, more than preventing them will, then we would expect those that care about money to prefer prevention to fines. Our job is to weaken this prediction about what businesses are going to do. Let’s see the answers:
Correct Answer Choice (A) Bingo. The argument depends on assuming that businesses will choose to invest in prevention rather than just hoping there won’t be an accident. If they significantly underestimate how likely accidents are, well then they are likely going to assume they don’t have to worry about accidents and the fines, and therefore won’t invest in prevention.
Answer Choice (B) This strengthens the argument, since the prevention of future accidents is a long-term strategy.
Answer Choice (C) This is totally compatible with the argument, the whole point is that businesses are going to invest in prevention because it makes business sense.
Answer Choice (D) This might be appealing if you infer that considering something an ordinary business expense means you don’t mind paying it; the problem is that we’ve been told that businesses care about their profits, and paying fines is more expensive than preventing them. So even if they consider fines an ordinary expense, the argument can still conclude they will choose to pay the cost of prevention instead.
Answer Choice (E) This does nothing to change the fact that prevention is cheaper than fines, and businesses want to maximize their overall profits.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 1 Explanations
Section 1 - 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
Section 2 - Logic Games
Section 3 - 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
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.