LSAT 119 – Section 2 – Question 01

LSAT 119 - Section 2 - Question 01

June 2005

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:47

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
PT119 S2 Q01
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
A
1%
152
B
0%
148
C
1%
156
D
98%
164
E
0%
156
120
122
133
 +Easiest 144.676 +SubsectionEasier

Cox: The consumer council did not provide sufficient justification for its action when it required that Derma-35 be recalled from the market.

Crockett: I disagree. Derma-35 in fact causes inflammation, but in citing only the side effect of blemishes as the justification for its decision, the council rightly acknowledged that blemishes are a legitimate health concern.

Speaker 1 Summary
Cox doesn’t make an argument, instead just claiming without support that the consumer council didn’t sufficiently justify its decision to pull Derma-35 from the market.

Speaker 2 Summary
Crockett argues that Cox is wrong; in other words, that the council did sufficiently justify its decision. What was the justification? The council cited the side effect of blemishes, which Crockett says are a legitimate health concern. Crockett clearly believes that citing a legitimate health concern justified the council’s decision.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Cox and Crockett disagree about whether or not the council’s decision was sufficiently justified.

A
Derma-35 should remain on the market
Neither speaker states their own opinion about whether or not Derma-35 should stay on the market. Each just discusses whether the council had an adequate basis for its decision.
B
blemishes are sometimes caused by inflammation
Neither speaker mentions a causal connection between blemishes and inflammation. Cox doesn’t mention blemishes or inflammation at all. Crockett mentions both, but doesn’t say whether they’re related.
C
the council based its decision on the threat of inflammation or on the threat of blemishes
Crockett’s argument indicates that the council based its decision on the threat of blemishes rather than inflammation (or at least it said it did). Cox, however, doesn’t discuss either blemishes or inflammation at all.
D
the council gave an adequate reason for its decision to recall Derma-35
Cox disagrees with this and Crockett agrees, so this is the point of disagreement. Cox’s claim is that the council did not give an adequate reason for its decision. Crockett’s argument disagrees with this claim, and tries to prove that the council’s reason was adequate.
E
inflammation is a serious health threat
Neither speaker offers an opinion about whether inflammation is a serious health threat. Only Crockett even mentions inflammation, and even then doesn’t say anything about its status as a health threat.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 119 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply