LSAT 111 – Section 3 – Question 08

LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 08

October 2001

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:40

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
PT111 S3 Q08
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Net Effect +NetEff
Value Judgment +ValJudg
Analogy +An
A
94%
166
B
0%
149
C
2%
159
D
1%
150
E
3%
161
124
135
146
 +Easier 147.206 +SubsectionMedium

Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country’s daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.

Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don’t be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

Summarize Argument
The drilling proponent implicitly claims the opponent offers poor support when she claims new offshore wells aren’t worth the risk. He supports his criticism with an analogy: like farms, he argues, new wells shouldn’t be considered too risky just because each one makes a small contribution to the country’s overall consumption.

Notable Assumptions
The drilling proponent assumes that a new well and a new farm carry roughly equal risk, and that a new well makes at least as big a contribution to the country’s oil needs as a new farm makes to its food needs.

A
New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that run by new offshore oil drilling.
This challenges the analogy drawn by the drilling proponent. New wells and new farms demand dissimilar cost-benefit calculations if they carry dissimilar risks while contributing similarly small amounts to the overall output of their products.
B
Many of the largest oil deposits are located under land that is unsuitable for farming.
The drilling proponent does not advocate that the same land be used for farming and drilling—he simply draws an analogy between the two practices.
C
Unlike oil, common agricultural products fulfill nutritional needs rather than fuel requirements.
This dissimilarity does not damage the drilling proponent’s analogy, which requires only that nutritional needs and fuel requirements be similarly large—not that they be fulfilled by the same product.
D
Legislation governing new oil drilling has been much more thoroughly articulated than has that governing new farms.
This isn’t relevant to the drilling proponent’s argument, which doesn’t cite the legality or regulatory ease of either farming or drilling.
E
The country under discussion imports a higher proportion of the farm products it needs than it does of the oil it needs.
This doesn’t damage the analogy drawn by the drilling proponent. New farms may still contribute a very small proportion to the overall nutritional needs of that country, even if it imports lots of food.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply