LSAT 104 – Section 4 – Question 11

LSAT 104 - Section 4 - Question 11

December 1998

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:00

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
PT104 S4 Q11
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
A
1%
154
B
0%
145
C
1%
154
D
99%
168
E
0%
125
131
137
143
 +Easier 147.438 +SubsectionMedium

P: Complying with the new safety regulations is useless. Even if the new regulations had been in effect before last year’s laboratory fire, they would not have prevented the fire or the injuries resulting from it because they do not address its underlying causes.

Q: But any regulations that can potentially prevent money from being wasted are useful. If obeyed, the new safety regulations will prevent some accidents, and whenever there is an accident here at the laboratory, money is wasted even if no one is injured.

Speaker 1 Summary
P says that it’s useless to follow the new safety regulations at the lab. Why? Because the regulations don’t address the causes of a fire that happened last year, and so the regulations wouldn’t have stopped the fire or prevented any injuries.

Speaker 2 Summary
Although not stated, Q’s argument leads to the implicit conclusion that following the new regulations is useful. Q says that any regulations that save money are useful, and the new regulations would prevent some accidents, thus saving money. This implies that, therefore, the new regulations are useful.

Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. The usefulness of the new regulations is one such point: P thinks they’re useless, but Q thinks they’re useful.

A
last year’s fire resulted in costly damage to the laboratory
Neither of the speakers actually says how costly the damage from last year’s fire was. Q says that every accident wastes money, but doesn’t say how much; P never discusses money at all.
B
accidents at the laboratory inevitably result in personal injuries
Q disagrees with this, discussing the possibility of accidents where no one is injured. P, on the other hand, never states an opinion about any accident other than last year’s fire. We simply don’t know P’s perspective on this.
C
the new safety regulations address the underlying cause of last year’s fire
P explicitly disagrees with this, but we don’t know what Q thinks. Q never weighs in on how the new regulations relate to last year’s fire, which means we can’t say that P and Q disagree.
D
it is useful to comply with the new safety regulations
P explicitly disagrees with this, but Q implicitly agrees, making this the point of disagreement. Although Q never states that they new regulations are useful, Q’s argument logically leads to that conclusion, so we can infer that Q agrees with this claim.
E
the new safety regulations are likely to be obeyed in the laboratory
Neither speaker offers an opinion about how likely people are to obey the new regulations. The conversation is about the regulations’ usefulness, not lab members’ adherence to the regulations.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 104 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply