LSAT 118 – Section 1 – Question 12

LSAT 118 - Section 1 - Question 12

December 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: 1:32

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
PT118 S1 Q12
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
16%
162
B
19%
163
C
31%
168
D
28%
164
E
7%
163
162
175
180
 +Hardest 148.411 +SubsectionMedium

Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are immediately downstream of paper mills. One possible cause is dioxin, which paper mills release daily and which can alter the concentration of hormones in fish. However, dioxin is unlikely to be the cause, since the fish recover normal hormone concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill shutdowns and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that dioxin released from paper mills is unlikely to be the cause of reproductive abnormalities in fish immediately downstream of the mills. This is because when the mills shut down, the fish recover normal hormone concentrations relatively quickly, even though dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment (which suggests the dioxin didn’t just disappear quickly from the area).

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the dioxin is still present around the fish immediately downstream of the paper mill during the mill shutdowns. This is why the author thinks the quick recovery of the fish shows that dioxin isn’t likely to be the cause of the fish’s problems. The author also assumes that the reproductive abnormalities in the fish are caused by abnormal hormone concentrations.

A
Some of the studies that show that fish recover quickly during shutdowns were funded by paper manufacturers.
Whoever funded the studies doesn’t change anything about what the studies found. We have no reason to think the source of funding affected how the study was done in a way that would lead us to question the results.
B
The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies depending on the conditions to which it is exposed.
A premise already establishes that dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment. Although the rate might not be exactly the same in all environments, we still know it decomposes very slowly. So, (B) doesn’t suggest that the dioxin might have decomposed quickly.
C
Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in the river far downstream in a few hours.
This shows dioxin might not be around the fish anymore during a shutdown. This is why the recovery of the fish during a shutdown does not constitute strong evidence that dioxin isn’t the cause. If dioxin isn’t around the fish at these times, that might be the reason fish recover.
D
Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from the physiological changes that were induced by the changes in hormone concentrations.
One assumption is that the reproductive abnormalities are caused by hormone concentrations. Even if we interpret “physiological changes” as including reproductive abnormalities (which is not clear), this affirms a link between hormones and reproductive abnormalities.
E
The connection between hormone concentrations and reproductive abnormalities is not thoroughly understood.
The fact the connection is not thoroughly understood does not undermine the assumption that hormone concentrations cause reproductive abnormalities. The issue is not how well we understand the relationship; it’s about whether there exists a causal relationship.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 118 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply