LSAT 119 – Section 3 – Question 21

LSAT 119 - Section 3 - Question 21

June 2005

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:59

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
PT119 S3 Q21
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
A
83%
165
B
2%
157
C
7%
157
D
7%
158
E
2%
156
137
147
157
 +Medium 145.195 +SubsectionEasier

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Baumgartner’s comparison of the environmental hazards of gasoline-powered cars with those of electric cars is misleading. He examines only production of the cars, whereas it is the product’s total life cycle—production, use, and recycling—that matters in determining its environmental impact. A typical gasoline-powered car consumes 3 times more resources and produces 15 to 20 times more air pollution than a typical electric car.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The argument concludes that Baumgartner’s methods of comparing electric cars with gasoline-powered cars is misleading. This is because an effective comparison should consider the entire life cycle of the car. Baumgartner’s comparison only considers production, so it will not be an accurate evaluation of the relative environmental impact of each kind of car.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that Baumgartner’s incomplete evaluation of the environmental impact of two types of cars leads to a misleading comparison: “Baumgartner’s comparison of the environmental hazards of gasoline-powered cars with those of electric cars is misleading.”

A
Baumgartner makes a deceptive comparison between the environmental hazards of gasoline-powered and electric cars.
This is the conclusion. The argument demonstrates that Baumgartner’s lack of consideration for the use and recycling of cars causes a misleading comparison of the impacts of these cars. The rest of the stimulus supports the claim that Baumgartner’s comparison is misleading.
B
The use of a typical gasoline-powered car results in much greater resource depletion than does the use of a typical electric car.
This is a premise. The information in this answer provides support for the idea that understanding use, not just production, of different types of cars is necessary in order to compare their environmental impacts.
C
Baumgartner uses inaccurate data in his comparison of the environmental hazards of gasoline-powered and electric cars.
This claim is not supported by the argument, so it is not the main conclusion. The argument claims that Baumgartner is considering an incomplete set of information. This is not the same thing as inaccurate data.
D
The total life cycle of a product is what matters in assessing its environmental impact.
This is a premise that shows that Baumgartner’s comparison is misleading. Because the total life cycle is what matters, Baumgartner is using incomplete information when he only considers production. This answer supports the conclusion that Baumgartner’s comparison is misleading.
E
The production of gasoline-powered cars creates more environmental hazards than does that of electric cars.
This answer is not supported by the information provided, so it cannot be the main conclusion. From the information given, we don’t know if this is true.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 119 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply