LSAT 108 – Section 3 – Question 12

LSAT 108 - Section 3 - Question 12

February 2000

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:08

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
PT108 S3 Q12
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
A
0%
B
96%
166
C
2%
158
D
1%
138
E
1%
166
120
129
141
 +Easiest 147.273 +SubsectionMedium

Geologist: A geological fault in the mountain under which the proposed nuclear waste storage facility would be buried could, after a few thousand years, cause the contents to seep out or water to seep in. Since nuclear waste remains dangerous for up to 25,000 years, such seepage would be disastrous. So we should not place a nuclear waste storage facility under this mountain until scientists investigate whether this mountain has any geological faults.

Summarize Argument
The geologist concludes scientists must investigate the mountain for geological faults before a nuclear waste storage facility is built there. Why? Because a fault could allow waste to leak out or water to seep in while the nuclear waste is still dangerous, a disastrous circumstance.

Notable Assumptions
The geologist assumes waiting to build the facility until the study is completed poses no greater risk than building the facility before the study. She assumes scientists will be able to tell, upon investigation, whether the mountain has a dangerous fault.

A
In a few thousand years, human civilization may no longer exist.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests a disaster caused by leakage or seepage could have lesser consequences in the future—because no humans would be left to suffer those consequences.
B
The scientists’ investigation would conclusively show whether or not the mountain has any geological faults.
This supports the geologist’s assumption that a scientific study would be able to detect a geological fault in the mountain. It rules out the possibility that such a study would be inconclusive, and thus unhelpful.
C
The proposed facility was not initially intended to be used for the storage of nuclear waste.
This is irrelevant. There’s no indication the facility’s original purpose would affect the potential consequences of a nuclear accident or increase the ability of scientists to detect a geological fault.
D
The scientists’ investigation would increase dramatically the cost of storing nuclear waste under the mountain.
If anything, this weakens the argument. If cost is an issue, it’s a reason not to conduct the study, and if cost is no issue, it’s irrelevant.
E
Nuclear waste could be stored in the proposed facility on a temporary basis.
If anything, this weakens the argument. It suggests there’s some chance nuclear waste will only be stored in this facility temporarily, which would lessen the chances of a nuclear disaster caused by a geological fault.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 108 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply