LSAT 107 – Section 3 – Question 03

LSAT 107 - Section 3 - Question 03

October 1999

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:48

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
PT107 S3 Q03
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Analogy +An
A
1%
157
B
0%
157
C
0%
D
99%
166
E
0%
120
122
132
 +Easiest 148.579 +SubsectionMedium

Land developer: By attempting to preserve endangered species that otherwise would become extinct during our lifetime, we are wasting money on species that will disappear over time regardless of our efforts. Paleontologists have established that extinction is the normal fate of species on the geological time scale of millions of years.

Environmentalist: To claim that we should let species disappear because all species eventually die out makes about as much sense as arguing that we should not spend money to find a cure for cancer because all humans are inevitably mortal.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to the land developer’s claim that it is a waste of money attempting to preserve species that will disappear regardless of efforts, the environmentalist points out that this claim is similar to concluding we should not spend money to cure cancer because humans are mortal.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The environmentalist counters the position held by the land developer. He does this by presenting an analogous argument with an obviously indefensible conclusion.

A
clarify a dilemma that is embedded in the land developer’s argument
There is no dilemma in the land developer’s argument. The land developer does not present a situation where a difficult choice needs to be made between two or more solutions.
B
attack the character of the land developer rather than the position the land developer is taking
The environmentalist does not attack the land developer’s character. He addresses the land developer’s argument directly.
C
show that more evidence is needed to substantiate the land developer’s conclusion
The environmentalist does not state that the land developer’s argument requires more evidence. His position is that the land developer’s argument is ridiculous.
D
show that the land developer’s line of reasoning would lead to an unacceptable conclusion if applied to a different situation
The analogous situation is spending money in order to find a cure for cancer.
E
argue that there are problems that money, however judiciously spent, cannot solve
The environmentalist does not state that money cannot solve some problems.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 107 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply