LSAT 118 – Section 4 – Question 11

LSAT 118 - Section 4 - Question 11

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: 1:13

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 S4 Q11
+LR
Evaluate +Eval
Except +Exc
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
3%
156
B
1%
155
C
91%
165
D
2%
155
E
3%
157
136
144
152
 +Medium 147.106 +SubsectionMedium

Between 1976 and 1985, chemical wastes were dumped into Cod Bay. Today, 3 percent of the bay’s bluefin cod population have deformed fins, and wary consumers have stopped buying the fish. In seeking financial reparations from companies that dumped the chemicals, representatives of Cod Bay’s fishing industry have claimed that since the chemicals are known to cause genetic mutations, the deformity in the bluefin cod must have been caused by the presence of those chemicals in Cod Bay.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The representatives hypothesize that the deformity in bluefin cod was caused by the chemical waste dumped into Cod Bay. This is because those chemicals are known to cause genetic mutations.

Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation, the representatives assume that the presence of chemicals caused the deformity in bluefin cod. This means the representatives don’t believe some third factor in fact caused the deformity, and that the deformity rates didn’t in fact precede the chemical waste being dumped in Cod Bay.

A
What is the incidence of deformed fins in bluefin cod that are not exposed to chemicals such as those dumped into Cod Bay?
If the incidence of deformity in bluefin cod is generally 3%, then it would seem the chemicals made no difference—a weakener. If the incidence was generally 0%, then the chemicals (or some other factor) would explain the 3% rate in Cod Boy—a strengthener.
B
What was the incidence of deformed fins in bluefin cod in Cod Bay before the chemical dumping began?
If the incidence of deformity in bluefin cod was 3% before chemical dumping, then it would seem the chemicals made no difference—a weakener. If the incidence was 0% before dumping, then the chemicals would explain the 3% rate in Cod Boy—a strengthener.
C
Has the consumption of the bluefin cod from Cod Bay that have deformed fins caused any health problems in the people who ate them?
We don’t care about how these deformities impact human health. The representatives hypothesize about what caused the deformities in the first place.
D
Are bluefin cod prone to any naturally occurring diseases that can cause fin deformities of the same kind as those displayed by the bluefin cod of Cod Bay?
If the answer is yes, then these diseases rather than the chemical may have been responsible for the deformities. If the answer is no, then chemicals remain a highly viable explanation of the deformities.
E
Are there gene-altering pollutants present in Cod Bay other than the chemical wastes that were dumped by the companies?
This points to an alternate cause. If other pollutants can cause deformities, then chemical waste might not be to blame. If other pollutants can’t cause deformities, chemical waste remains a highly viable explanation.

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