LSAT 122 – Section 4 – Question 07

LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 07

June 2006

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

Target time: 0:57

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
PT122 S4 Q07
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
A
1%
156
B
4%
156
C
88%
164
D
0%
155
E
8%
159
128
140
152
 +Easier 146.485 +SubsectionMedium

Editorialist: There would seem to be little hazard for consumers associated with chemicals used in treated lumber because the lumber is used outside where fumes cannot accumulate. However, immediate steps should be taken to determine the safety of these chemicals since consumers could ingest them. If the lumber is used for children’s playground equipment, youngsters could put their mouths on the wood, and if it is used to contain soil in a vegetable garden, the chemicals could leach into the soil.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The editorialist concludes that we should investigate the safety of the chemicals used to treat lumber. The editorialist concedes that it may seem like potential harms of these chemicals would be reduced by the fact that lumber is used outside where fumes cannot accumulate. However, to support his claim, the editorialist references two examples where consumers may ingest the chemicals: when children play on playgrounds, and when the lumber is used to contain soil in gardens. In these cases, there is a risk that chemicals could be ingested, which supports the editorialist’s conclusion that these chemicals’ risks should be studied.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that the risks of chemicals used to treat lumber should be investigated: “Immediate steps should be taken to determine the safety of these chemicals since consumers could ingest them.

A
The chemicals used in treated lumber are apparently not dangerous to the consumer.
This is context for the argument, not the main conclusion. The editorialist argues that despite the apparent lack of danger, we should research these chemicals.
B
Treated lumber is as dangerous when used outdoors as it is when used indoors.
This kind of comparative statement is not supported by the argument, so this is not the main conclusion.
C
The effects on humans from the chemicals in treated lumber should be studied.
This is the main conclusion. The editorialist’s claim is a recommendation to study the chemicals used to treat lumber; the two examples given act as support for this claim.
D
Parents should not allow children to put their mouths on playground equipment.
While this may be supported by the argument, the editorialist is not making recommendations for parents. This is not the main conclusion. The purpose of the example about children was to illustrate a potential danger of the chemicals.
E
Treated lumber is more dangerous than was once believed.
The editorialist is not making a claim on the danger of treated lumber; he is just addressing a possibility of danger that should be investigated further.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 122 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply