LSAT 117 – Section 4 – Question 10

LSAT 117 - Section 4 - Question 10

October 2004

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:24

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
PT117 S4 Q10
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
5%
156
B
5%
155
C
8%
157
D
7%
154
E
76%
163
142
151
160
 +Medium 147.423 +SubsectionMedium

Council member P: Alarmists are those who see an instance of pollution and exaggerate its significance into a major character fault of society. Such alarmists fail to distinguish the incident and the behavior that caused it from the disposition of people not to pollute.

Council member Q: To think that there is a lot of pollution based on the discovery of a serious single instance of pollution is simply an application of the widely accepted principle that actions tend to follow the path of least resistance, and it is surely easier to pollute than not to pollute.

Speaker 1 Summary
P supports an unstated conclusion that alarmists do not have sufficient support to conclude that pollution is a major character fault of society. By explaining that alarmists fail to distinguish polluting behavior from people’s tendency not to pollute, P implies that a societal character flaw of pollution does not follow from specific instances of pollution.

Speaker 2 Summary
Q indicates an unstated conclusion that alarmists’ claim is reasonably supported. Q supports this by explaining that actions generally follow the path of least resistance, and it is easier to pollute than not to pollute. This implies that a single incident of pollution is good evidence that more people will be doing the easy thing and polluting.

Objective
We need to find a disagreement. P and Q disagree about whether or not pollution indicates that people generally tend to pollute.

A
pollution should be considered a problem
Neither speaker directly claims that pollution should or shouldn’t be considered a problem. Both P and Q’s arguments are consistent with the idea that pollution is problematic; the dispute is about how widespread we should believe pollution is, not whether it’s a problem.
B
actions tend to follow the path of least resistance
Q makes this claim, but P never disagrees. In fact, P does not express any opinion about whether actions tend to follow the path of least resistance or some other path.
C
people are responsible for pollution
D
people can change their behavior and not pollute
Neither speaker talks about whether polluters can or cannot change their behavior. The discussion focuses on how widespread pollution might be based on available evidence, not the next steps to limit pollution.
E
people are inclined to pollute
P disagrees with this and Q agrees, making this the point of disagreement. P explicitly states that people have a disposition not to pollute. Q claims that actions follow the path of least resistance, which is to pollute, thus implying that people tend to pollute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 117 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply