LSAT 110 – Section 2 – Question 08

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 08

June 2001

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:03

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
PT110 S2 Q08
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
89%
167
B
0%
154
C
8%
162
D
0%
159
E
3%
156
129
141
153
 +Easier 145.606 +SubsectionMedium

Conservationist: The risk to airplane passengers from collisions between airplanes using the airport and birds from the wildlife refuge is negligible. In the 10 years since the refuge was established, only 20 planes have been damaged in collisions with birds, and no passenger has been injured as a result of such a collision. The wildlife refuge therefore poses no safety risk.

Pilot: You neglect to mention that 17 of those 20 collisions occurred within the past 2 years, and that the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing. As the number of collisions between birds and airplanes increases, so does the likelihood that at least one such collision will result in passenger injuries.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to the conservationist’s claim that the wildlife refuge poses no safety risk, the pilot counters by pointing out 17 of the 20 collisions that occurred in the 10 years since the refuge was established happened within the last 2 years. Moreover, the number of birds in the refuge is rapidly increasing. The more collisions between birds and airplanes, the greater likelihood at least one collision will result in passenger injuries.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The pilot counters the position held by the conservationist. She does this by showing that the conservationist’s statements about the number of collisions between birds and planes is misleading. 20 total collisions spread out over 10 years implies a lower risk compared to 17 collisions in only 2 years. Therefore, it can’t be true that the refuge poses absolutely no safety risk.

A
attempting to show that the conservationist’s description of the facts is misleading
The pilot shows the conservationist’s description is misleading by pointing out the distribution of collisions over the 10 year period. 20 collisions spread out over 10 years illustrates a different picture compared to 17 collisions in just 2 years.
B
questioning the conservationist’s motives for reaching a certain conclusion
The pilot does not address the conservationist’s motives. The pilot addresses the conservationist’s argument directly.
C
asserting that dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous with the passage of time
The pilot does not state a general principle about dangerous situations becoming more dangerous over time. The pilot addresses only one specific dangerous situation: the collisions between planes and birds from the wildlife refuge.
D
discrediting the moral principle on which the conservationist’s argument is based
The conservationist does not state a moral principle as the basis of his argument.
E
disputing the accuracy of the figures cited by the conservationist
The pilot does not deny the accuracy of the conservationist’s evidence. Rather, the pilot shows that the evidence as described by the conservationist is misleading.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 110 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply