LSAT 132 – Section 2 – Question 05

LSAT 132 - Section 2 - Question 05

December 2010

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:55

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
PT132 S2 Q05
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
0%
150
B
3%
156
C
88%
164
D
0%
152
E
9%
157
124
137
150
 +Easier 148.345 +SubsectionMedium

Area resident: Childhood lead poisoning has declined steadily since the 1970s, when leaded gasoline was phased out and lead paint was banned. But recent statistics indicate that 25 percent of this area’s homes still contain lead paint that poses significant health hazards. Therefore, if we eliminate the lead paint in those homes, childhood lead poisoning in the area will finally be eradicated.

Summarize Argument
The resident concludes that if all remaining lead paint is eliminated from homes in the area, child lead poisoning will be eradicated. This is based on the observation that childhood lead poisoning has declined since gasoline and paint stopped being made with lead. However, there is still lead paint in some homes.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The resident claims that the elimination of lead paint from homes will completely eradicate childhood lead poisoning in the area. This overlooks the possibility that other sources of lead could be present. Those sources could continue to contribute to lead poisoning, even if lead paint in houses is eliminated.

A
relies on statistical claims that are likely to be unreliable
There’s no reason to believe that the statistical claims used in the argument are unreliable.
B
relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the conclusion is true
There isn’t any assumption in the argument that assumes the conclusion is true.
C
fails to consider that there may be other significant sources of lead in the area’s environment
The resident overlooks the possibility that other major lead sources could still cause childhood lead poisoning in the area. However, if that were true, it would severely undermine the resident’s conclusion.
D
takes for granted that lead paint in homes can be eliminated economically
The argument doesn’t make any claims about whether lead paint in homes can be eliminated economically. The argument only makes claims about what would happen if it were eliminated.
E
takes for granted that children reside in all of the homes in the area that contain lead paint
The argument doesn’t take for granted that children reside in all of the homes with lead paint, only that there are at least some children residing in homes with lead paint.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 132 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply