LSAT 106 – Section 1 – Question 18

LSAT 106 - Section 1 - Question 18

June 1999

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:11

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
PT106 S1 Q18
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
A
3%
162
B
5%
164
C
8%
161
D
8%
163
E
76%
168
145
155
165
 +Harder 152.148 +SubsectionHarder

Kevin’s explanation

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

Essayist: The way science is conducted and regulated can be changed. But we need to determine whether the changes are warranted, taking into account their price. The use of animals in research could end immediately, but only at the cost of abandoning many kinds of research and making others very expensive. The use of recombinant DNA could be drastically curtailed. Many other restrictions could be imposed, complete with a system of fraud police. But such massive interventions would be costly and would change the character of science.

Summarize Argument
The essayist says we must make sure that any major change to scientific procedure is worth it—that the benefits outweigh the costs. The essayist then presents support for the idea that we should proceed carefully in the form of specific examples of possible changes to science. At the end, the essayist emphasizes that the changes would come at a high cost, thus underscoring the point that we need to be sure changes are warranted.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the essayist’s call for caution: “we need to determine whether the changes are warranted, taking into account their price.”

A
We should not make changes that will alter the character of science.
The essayist never says we shouldn’t make changes, just that we need to be certain the benefit of any changes makes the cost worth it.
B
If we regulate science more closely, we will change the character of science.
The essayist only mentions changes to regulation; it's unclear if this means closer or just different regulation. Either way, the claim that the character of science will change lends support to the call for caution. If anything, (B) is a premise, not the conclusion.
C
The regulation of science and the conducting of science can be changed.
This is just context that allows us to understand the essayist’s argument. The point of the argument isn’t whether or not science can be changed, but that we should think carefully about making those changes.
D
The imposition of restrictions on the conduct of science would be very costly.
This is a premise. The essayist’s claim that restrictions would be costly supports the idea that we should consider the costs when thinking about whether to impose such restrictions.
E
We need to be aware of the impact of change in science before changes are made.
This captures the essayist’s conclusion. The rest of the argument is designed to support the idea that we should first fully understand if changes would be warranted by understanding their impact, including their benefits and costs.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply