LSAT 131 – Section 1 – Question 01

LSAT 131 - Section 1 - Question 01

December 2009

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:49

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
PT131 S1 Q01
+LR
+Exp
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Net Effect +NetEff
A
0%
158
B
1%
149
C
3%
160
D
95%
165
E
0%
145
121
132
143
 +Easiest 147.383 +SubsectionMedium

Editorial: Almost every year the Smithfield River floods the coastal fishing community of Redhook, which annually spends $3 million on the cleanup. Some residents have proposed damming the river, which would cost $5 million but would prevent the flooding. However, their position is misguided. A dam would prevent nutrients in the river from flowing into the ocean. Fish that now feed on those nutrients would start feeding elsewhere. The loss of these fish would cost Redhook $10 million annually.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The editorial argues that the proposal to dam the river is misguided. Building the dam would have negative consequences. The dam would prevent the flow of nutrients, causing fish to feed elsewhere. The loss of the fish would cost $10 million annually (which is much more than the cost of the cleanup from flooding that the dam was built to prevent).

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the editorial’s refutation of the residents who propose damming the river: “their position is misguided.”

A
The Smithfield River should be dammed to prevent flooding.
This is the position described in the context that the editorial refutes.
B
Nutrients from the Smithfield River are essential to the local fish population.
This is unstated but shows why the fish would feed elsewhere if the nutrients were gone. It therefore contributes to the explanation of why the position is misguided. It also isn’t necessarily true - maybe the fish want, but don’t need, the nutrients.
C
Damming the Smithfield River is not worth the high construction costs for such a project.
The editorial’s argument is not about the construction costs. The editorial supports the argument that the position is misguided by showing the costs of unintended consequences.
D
For Redhook to build a dam on the Smithfield River would be a mistake.
This accurately rephrases the conclusion. The position is misguided, therefore it would be a mistake to go through with the plan.
E
The Smithfield River floods cost Redhook $3 million every year.
This is context that sets up the proposal that the editorial ultimately refutes.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply