LSAT 124 – Section 3 – Question 02

LSAT 124 - Section 3 - Question 02

December 2007

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:41

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
PT124 S3 Q02
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
0%
149
B
2%
151
C
98%
164
D
0%
148
E
0%
151
129
136
142
 +Easier 145.896 +SubsectionMedium

The question stem reads: The argument's reasoning is flawed because of the argument… This is a Flaw question.

The author describes how since the 1970s, environmentalists have successfully gotten lawmakers to enact extensive environmental regulations. However, the author also notes that the environment has not improved; it has gotten worse. The author concludes that more environmental regulations are not the solution to the problem. The author believes that because the environment is worsening, the regulations must not positively affect the environment. In other words, the regulations are not causing the environment to get better.

However, we do not know all of the problems affecting the environment. It is possible that the regulations positively impact the environment, but the positive impacts are overshadowed by the other events harming the environment. Imagine we enacted environmental regulations to ban disposable straws. At the same time, we doubled the amount of coal-fired electricity plants. The straw regulations have a positive effect, saving many tortoises, but the harm caused by the coal outpaces the positive effects of the straw regulation. The author would argue that more regulations are not the solution, but we could easily say that we need to regulate the coal-fire-powered plants. So the author has failed to consider that there might be other events causing harm to the environment.

Answer Choice (A) is incorrect because it is not our identified causation flaw. There is no attack on the environmentalists. In fact, he uses their own words to lend credibility to his argument.

Answer Choice (B) is not presumed the by the author. At no point does the author's argument presume zero regulations are required to prevent environmental degradation can be prevented. The author could say that the regulations are simply ineffective and that whether we have them makes no difference to the environment.

Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we paraphrased. The author does fail to consider the possibility that the regulations are having a positive effect. Without the positive effects of the regulations, the environment could have gotten worse.

Answer Choice (D) is not presumed by the argument. The author does not claim reducing regulation is more important than protecting the environment.

Answer Choice (E) is wrong. While the author does not consider the view of the environmentalist's opponents, that is not the argument's flaw.

 

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 124 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply