LSAT 122 – Section 4 – Question 15

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:17

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

According to the proposed Factory Safety Act, a company may operate an automobile factory only if that factory is registered as a class B factory. In addressing whether a factory may postpone its safety inspections, this Act also stipulates that no factory can be class B without punctual inspections. Thus, under the Factory Safety Act, a factory that manufactures automobiles would not be able to postpone its safety inspections.

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

Leave a Reply