LSAT 132 – Section 2 – Question 08

LSAT 132 - Section 2 - Question 08

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: 1:23

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 Q08
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Part v. Whole +PvW
A
51%
167
B
19%
157
C
6%
158
D
20%
160
E
5%
161
154
163
172
 +Hardest 148.345 +SubsectionMedium

A leading critic of space exploration contends that it would be wrong, given current technology, to send a group of explorers to Mars, since the explorers would be unlikely to survive the trip. But that exaggerates the risk. There would be a well-engineered backup system at every stage of the long and complicated journey. A fatal catastrophe is quite unlikely at any given stage if such a backup system is in place.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that explorers to Mars would not be unlikely to survive the trip to Mars. This is based on the fact that there would be a well-engineered backup system at every stage of the trip. In addition, at each stage of the trip, a fatal accident is unlikely if the backup system is in place.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the risk of a fatal accident for the trip overall is greater than 50%, even if the risk at each individual stage is less than 50%. In other words, the author overlooks the possibility that what is true about the part (having a less than 50% chance of accident) might not be true about the overall whole.

A
infers that something is true of a whole merely from the fact that it is true of each of the parts
The argument infers that something is true of a whole (the trip will involve less than 50% chance of death) merely from the fact that it is true of each of the parts (each stage involves less than 50% chance of death).
B
infers that something cannot occur merely from the fact that it is unlikely to occur
The conclusion is not that a fatal accident “cannot” occur. The conclusion is simply that it is unlikely to happen during a trip to Mars. Also, the premises do not establish that a fatal accident is unlikely to occur. That is the author’s flawed assumption based on the premises.
C
draws a conclusion about what must be the case based on evidence about what is probably the case
The conclusion is simply that a fatal accident is unlikely to happen. Also, the premises do not establish that a fatal accident probably won’t happen on the trip. That is the flawed assumption based on the premises about each stage.
D
infers that something will work merely because it could work
The author does not infer that anything “will” (as in, with 100% certainty) work. The conclusion is simply that a fatal accident is unlikely during the trip.
E
rejects a view merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it
The author does reject the view that people are unlikely to survive the trip, but not because of an inadequate argument in support of the view. The author’s premises involve the chance of death at each stage of the trip. This isn’t related to the weakness of an opposing argument.

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