LSAT 111 – Section 3 – Question 07

LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 07

October 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: 1:19

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
PT111 S3 Q07
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Net Effect +NetEff
Value Judgment +ValJudg
Analogy +An
A
1%
155
B
1%
155
C
4%
159
D
93%
167
E
1%
158
129
139
149
 +Easier 147.206 +SubsectionMedium

Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country’s daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.

Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don’t be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to the drilling opponent’s claim that the benefits of drilling new oil wells are not worth the risks, the drilling proponent states that this claim is ridiculous. as evidence, the proponent points out that a similar conclusion can be made about new farms. New farms should not be allowed because no new farm can satisfy our country’s food needs for more than a few minutes.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The drilling proponent counters the position held by the drilling opponent. He does this by presenting an analogous argument with an obviously absurd conclusion.

A
offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent
The drilling proponent does not offer any evidence in support of drilling. The proponent’s argument focuses on the reasoning of the opponent’s claims.
B
claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate
The proponent does not claim that the opponent’s cited statistics are inaccurate.
C
pointing out that the drilling opponent’s argument is a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing
The drilling proponent does not point out a misapplication of the drilling opponent’s argument. The proponent presents an analogous argument to demonstrate the opponent’s faulty reasoning.
D
citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported
The parallel argument is the drilling proponent’s example of not allowing new farms. The conclusion is absurd in the same way the drilling opponent’s conclusion is absurd.
E
proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent’s evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent
The drilling proponent does not propose a different conclusion. The proponent’s argument does not address whether new oil wells should be allowed.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply