LSAT 122 – Section 4 – Question 15
LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 15
June 2006You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 1:17
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PT122 S4 Q15 |
+LR
| Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Conditional Reasoning +CondR | A
87%
164
B
1%
151
C
1%
154
D
5%
156
E
6%
158
|
135 144 154 |
+Medium | 146.485 +SubsectionMedium |
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that an automobile-manufacturing factory could not postpone safety inspections under a proposed Act. This is because the Act would require all automobile-manufacturing factories to register as a class B factories. Furthermore, under the Act, a class B factory may not postpone inspections.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author draws a conclusion by combining two premises given by the Act. If a type of factory must be registered in a general class, then a given rule of that general class—in this case, punctual safety inspections—must apply to that type of factory.
A
pointing out how two provisions of the proposed Factory Safety Act jointly entail the unacceptability of a certain state of affairs
The author points out how two provisions—the classification of automobile manufacturers as class B factories, and the rule of timely inspections for class B factories—jointly entail the unacceptability of automobile manufacturers postponing inspections.
B
considering two possible interpretations of a proposed legal regulation and eliminating the less plausible one
The author does not consider different interpretations of the Act, but instead draws a definitive conclusion based on a single interpretation of the Act.
C
showing that the terms of the proposed Factory Safety Act are incompatible with existing legislation
The author doesn’t address any existing legislation other than the proposed Act.
D
showing that two different provisions of the proposed Factory Safety Act conflict and thus cannot apply to a particular situation
The author doesn’t show that two provisions of the Act conflict, but rather draws a conclusion based on how two compatible provisions interact.
E
pointing out that if a provision applies in a specific situation, it must apply in any analogous situation
The author doesn’t address any analogous situations, only specifically dealing with the timing of safety inspections for automobile manufacturers under the proposed Act.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 122 Explanations
Section 1 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 2 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Section 3 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.