Discussions

User Avatar
jenniferyclo589
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free

Hi everyone,

So bewildered by this question that I have to post on the discussion forum. Why is answer choice E correct??? After analyzing all the answer choices, it seems to me that NONE of the answer choices is even close to being correct. If someone can see a flaw in my reasoning, please advise.

Missing Assumption: the higher amount of pollutants in the Baltic Sea is making the Baltic seals more susceptible/succumb-able to viral diseases and therefore is what's causing the higher rate of viral deaths in Baltic seals (compared to Scottish seals).

In other words, we're assuming that it is not some alternative cause that's causing the higher viral death rate in the Baltic seals (for example, what if the viruses infecting the 2 islands are different, and the virus in the Baltic sea is just more deadly than the virus in the Scottish sea?)

A: Irrelevant - doesn't make it more believable that the higher rate of viral deaths in B is due to pollutants. Knowing more about the Scottish seals doesn't really matter here!

B: Might've be a potential strengthener if it said "Baltic seals" instead of "Scottish seals", but even then we would have to make the assumption that the virus infecting the two islands were the same kind of virus in order for us to see this as a strengthener.

However, it's still talking about the Scottish seals, which again is not what we care about!

C: Easiest choice to eliminate. Irrelevant!

D : "The kinds of pollutants" is irrelevant to our discussion here, because we care about the amount and not type of pollutants. In other words, even if the pollutants are different between the 2 islands are different, I'm not more convinced that the higher amount of pollutants in B is what resulted in the higher rate of viral deaths in B.

E: Also irrelevant to the issue at hand! Even if the viral death rate was higher for other sea mammals in the Baltic sea, it doesn't make me believe more that it is SPECIFICALLY the pollutants that are causing the higher viral death rates! The only thing this AC does for me is convince me that there is certainly something different between the Baltic and Scottish seas that's making the Baltic seals die more from viral diseases, however we have no idea if that "something" is pollutants or if it's something else! For example, given the additional info in E, it could still very well be that it is NOT the pollutants causing the higher viral death rates, but a deadlier virus that infects all marine mammals in the Baltic seas - because the virus in the Baltic sea is different and deadlier than the virus in the Scottish sea, the seals die more from this virus in the Baltic seas (than in the Scottish seas from the weaker virus). It could still very well be that the higher level of pollutants in the Baltic seals' blood is just a coincidence and not the real cause of their higher viral death rate.

If you see where I've gone wrong in my reasoning, please help!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-3-question-13/

0
PrepTests ·
PT130.S3.Q18
User Avatar
jenniferyclo589
Saturday, Oct 01 2022

#help

I absolutely cannot understand JY's logic at all in this explanation video, but I got the question right using my own reasoning.

My focus was on the "either EZ should be banned or TSX should be legalized." I thought that the concept being tested here was the "inclusive/exclusive or" and thought that in this case, the "either... or" best fits the "inclusive or". In that case, according to the conclusion, one of the following 3 scenarios should happen:

1) T Legal, EZ Legal

2) T Banned, EZ Banned

3) (inclusive or scenario) T Legal, EZ Banned

I then moved to the answer choices and analyzed them using each of the scenarios. A and B are inconsistent with the passage based on Scenario 1, and E is inconsistent with the passage based on Scenario 2. However, it seems like both C and D are consistent with the passage, so I just went with my gut feeling and chose D when I was doing the question under a time crunch.

After coming back to the question and reviewing it, I came to the conclusion that C is irrelevant to the conclusion at hand, because we're not interested in knowing the conditional relationship in C. However, I'm not quite satisfied with this conclusion since I don't think it's logically air-tight. I was also wondering if my reasoning was correct (albeit different from JY's), or if my reasoning was complete bs and I should seriously re-analyze this question. Would love some feedback and help on this. Thanks!

0
PrepTests ·
PT106.S1.Q18
User Avatar
jenniferyclo589
Tuesday, Aug 30 2022

Seeing that you posted this comment 6 months ago you might no longer need an explanation, but this is how I thought of it:

Conclusion: Even though the way science is conducted and regulated could be changed, we need to determine whether the changes are worth their costs.

A: "We should not make changes that will alter the character of science"

Incorrect - the conclusion is saying that we need to determine whether changes to science are worth their costs; it is NOT saying that we should not make any changes (e.g. maybe after evaluating the costs we decide that the benefit of the change outweighs the cost of the change). Also, the "character of science" isn't mentioned anywhere in the conclusion statement!

B: "If we regulate science more closely, we will change the character of science

Incorrect - again, the "character of science" is only mentioned at the very end of the passage, and is nowhere in the conclusion. Also, this answer choice isn't supported by the passage - the passage talks about examples of how some changes to science can have great costs, and that doesn't support this statement.

C: "The regulation of science and the conducting of science can be changed

Incorrect - this is a great trick answer choice, since the conclusion DOES mention that the regulation and conducting of science can be changed. However, it doesn't refer to the ENTIRE conclusion - the important part about the costs of changes is omitted from this answer choice, and therefore it only express a PART of the conclusion and not the entire main point of the passage.

D: "The imposition of restrictions on the conduct of science would be very costly"

Incorrect - another trick answer choice, however much easier to identify: the passage doesn't tell us that changes of regulation of science would be very costly, it tells us that we need to evaluate the potential benefit and cost of each change to determine if the change was worth it.

E: "We need to be aware of the impact of change in science before changes are made"

Correct - a great re-phrasing of the conclusion!

As for your question of how the last sentence supports the conclusion -

The conclusion talks about weighing the benefits vs costs of a change, and the last sentence talks directly about the cost of potential "massive interventions".

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?