LSAT 126 – Section 4 – Question 15

LSAT 126 - Section 4 - Question 15

October 2008

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:11

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
PT126 S4 Q15
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
0%
157
B
26%
160
C
2%
156
D
68%
164
E
4%
156
141
153
166
 +Harder 147.084 +SubsectionMedium

Technological innovation rarely serves the interests of society as a whole. This can be seen from the fact that those responsible for technological advances are almost without exception motivated by considerations of personal gain rather than societal benefit in that they strive to develop commercially viable technology.

A
contains a premise that cannot possibly be true
There’s nothing about the premise that cannot be true. People responsible for tec. advances can be motivated by considerations of personal gain rather than societal benefit.
B
takes for granted that technology beneficial to society as a whole cannot be commercially viable
The author assumes that tech. that’s beneficial to society as a whole cannot be made for the PURPOSE of personal gain. But that doesn’t mean the tech. can’t be commercially viable. It can be, as long as the PURPOSE was not to produce something commercialy viable.
C
fails to consider the possibility that actions motivated by a desire for personal gain often do not result in personal gain
Whether anyone actually gets personal gain is not relevant. The issue is whether someone who invents stuff for the PURPOSE of personal gain can make things that help society as a whole.
D
takes for granted that an action is unlikely to produce a certain outcome unless it is motivated by a desire to produce that outcome
The author assumes that an action (tech. advance) is unlikely to proudce a certain outcome (societal benefit) unless it’s motivated by a desire to produce that outcome. This captures the assumption that tech. advances made for personal gain can’t help society as a whole.
E
draws a conclusion about the practical consequences of people’s actions on the basis of theoretical views about what people should or should not do
The conc. isn’t based on “theoretical views about what people should or should not do.” The premise doesn’t describe what anyone should or shouldn’t do.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 126 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply