LSAT 109 – Section 1 – Question 25

LSAT 109 - Section 1 - Question 25

December 2000

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:45

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
PT109 S1 Q25
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
1%
159
B
4%
161
C
3%
158
D
91%
167
E
1%
158
140
148
157
 +Medium 148.877 +SubsectionMedium

The number of airplanes equipped with a new anticollision device has increased steadily during the past two years. During the same period, it has become increasingly common for key information about an airplane’s altitude and speed to disappear suddenly from air traffic controllers’ screens. The new anticollision device, which operates at the same frequency as air traffic radar, is therefore responsible for the sudden disappearance of key information.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that a new anticollision device is responsible for the sudden disappearance of information from air traffic controllers’ screens. This is based on the observation that over the last two years, the anticollision device has become more popular, while at the same time, the information disappearances have become more frequent.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that just because there’s a correlation between the use of the new anticollision device and information disappearing from air traffic controllers’ screens, the former must be causally contributing to the latter. This means that the author assumes there isn’t some other cause for the disappearing information.

A
The new anticollision device has already prevented a considerable number of mid-air collisions.
This does not weaken the argument, because it’s totally unrelated to the author’s hypothesis. The author isn’t saying we should stop using the anticollision device, just that it’s interfering with air traffic control information. This isn’t at all relevant to that claim.
B
It was not until the new anticollision device was introduced that key information first began disappearing suddenly from controllers’ screens.
This does not weaken the argument. In fact, it may even strengthen the argument by establishing a stronger temporal connection between the use of the new device and the information disappearance.
C
The new anticollision device is scheduled to be moved to a different frequency within the next two to three months.
This does not weaken the argument, because it doesn’t give us any reason to believe that the device may not interfere with air traffic control. If the frequency had been switched but information kept disappearing, that could weaken—but that’s not what this says.
D
Key information began disappearing from controllers’ screens three months before the new anticollision device was first tested.
This weakens the argument by undermining the temporal link between the use of the new device and the disappearing information. It still doesn’t tell us the true cause, but if the information was disappearing without the device ever being used, there must be another cause.
E
The sudden disappearance of key information from controllers’ screens has occurred only at relatively large airports.
This does not weaken the argument. We don’t know enough about how frequently the disappearances happen, how many planes use the new device, and so on, for this to be helpful. As it is, this doesn’t tell us anything about whether the new device truly causes interference.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 109 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply