LSAT 105 – Section 4 – Question 09

LSAT 105 - Section 4 - Question 09

February 1999

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:42

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
PT105 S4 Q09
+LR
Weaken +Weak
A
13%
162
B
5%
163
C
79%
166
D
2%
157
E
2%
158
125
143
160
 +Medium 144.839 +SubsectionEasier

To allay public concern about chemicals that are leaking into a river from a chemical company’s long-established dump, a company representative said, “Federal law requires that every new chemical be tested for safety before it is put onto the market. This is analogous to the federal law mandating testing of every pharmaceutical substance for safety.”

Summarize Argument
The representative comes to the implied conclusion that the public need not be concerned about chemicals leaking into the river from the company’s plant. In support, the representative states that every new chemical must legally be tested for safety before being sold, and that this requirement is analogous to the testing required for new pharmaceuticals.

Notable Assumptions
The representative assumes that because pharmaceuticals are tested for their safety when consumed, industrial chemicals are also tested at this standard. But maybe chemical testing uses a different standard of “safety,” for example merely being safe to work with.
The representative also assumes that the chemical company’s dump only contains chemicals that were tested to the current standard. Maybe standards have changed, or maybe not all suppliers respect the law.

A
When pharmaceutical substances are tested for safety pursuant to federal requirements, a delay is imposed on the entry of potentially lifesaving substances onto the market.
This does not weaken the argument, because it doesn’t give us any reason to doubt the representative’s implied conclusion. Whether the testing delays the entry of substances onto the market tells us nothing about chemical safety standards.
B
Leakage from the dump has occurred in noticeable amounts only in the last few months.
This does not weaken the argument. The representative says that the chemicals are safe due to testing requirements, and like (D), how long they’ve been leaking has no relevance to that claim.
C
Before the federal law requiring testing of nonpharmaceutical chemicals went into effect recently, there were 40,000 such chemicals being manufactured, many of them dangerous.
This weakens the argument by casting doubt on whether all the chemicals in the company’s “long-established” dump would actually meet current safety requirements. This claim makes it totally possible that there are many dangerous untested chemicals in the dump.
D
The concentration of the chemicals leaking into the river is diluted, first by rainwater and then by the water in the river.
This does not weaken the argument, because like (B), the amount of likely exposure isn’t really the issue here. The representative’s claim is that the chemicals are safe, not that they’re potentially unsafe but diluted. This doesn’t address the chemicals’ actual safety.
E
The water in the river is murky because of the runoff of silt from a number of nearby construction projects.
This does not weaken the argument. Whether or not the river water is murky, or what other substances are in the river, is totally irrelevant to the issue of chemical safety. This just does not affect the argument at all.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply