LSAT 149 – Section 4 – Question 09

LSAT 149 - Section 4 - Question 09

December 2017

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:59

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
PT149 S4 Q09
+LR
+Exp
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
7%
153
B
0%
150
C
1%
148
D
2%
151
E
90%
164
139
145
152
 +Medium 147.325 +SubsectionMedium

Politician: Some proponents of unilateral nuclear arms reduction argue that it would encourage other countries to reduce their own nuclear arsenals, eventually leading to an international agreement on nuclear arms reduction. Our acting on the basis of this argument would be dangerous, because the argument ignores the countries presently on the verge of civil wars. These countries, many of which have nuclear capability, cannot be relied upon to conform to any international military policy.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The politician concludes that it would be dangerous to follow the argument for unilateral arms reduction, since nuclearized countries on the verge of civil war can’t be relied on to reduce their nuclear arsenals in turn.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion makes a case against the politician’s country acting on unilateral arms reduction: “Our acting on the basis of this argument would be dangerous.”

A
Countries that are on the verge of civil wars are unlikely to agree to reduce either their nuclear arms or their conventional weapons.
This is a premise that supports the politician’s conclusion. Since countries on the verge of civil war are unlikely to reduce their arsenals, unilateral arms reduction wouldn’t achieve broad disarmament.
B
Unilateral nuclear arms reduction by the politician’s country would encourage all countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals.
This is a component of the reasoning that the politician argues against embracing. The politician believes there are risks that this line of reasoning doesn’t factor in.
C
Many countries cannot be relied upon to disclose the extent of their nuclear capability.
This doesn’t appear in the politician’s argument. The politician says many countries can’t be relied upon to conform to international military policy, but we don’t know anything about specifically disclosing their nuclear capability.
D
It is unlikely that an international agreement on nuclear disarmament will ever be achieved.
This doesn’t appear in the politician’s argument. The politician simply states that unilateral disarmament wouldn’t be wise at the present time.
E
It is risky for the politician’s country to unilaterally reduce nuclear arms in hopes of achieving an international agreement on arms reduction.
Since many countries wouldn’t follow international military policy, unilateral arms reduction wouldn’t achieve its aims. It’s risky to give up weapons when other countries aren’t doing the same.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 149 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply