LSAT 133 – Section 2 – Question 12

LSAT 133 - Section 2 - Question 12

June 2011

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

Target time: 2:06

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
PT133 S2 Q12	+LR +Exp	Most strongly supported +MSS Causal Reasoning +CausR	A 46% 168 B 11% 162 C 17% 164 D 25% 162 E 2% 158	156 167 179	+Hardest	147.633 +SubsectionMedium

Commentator: Recently, articles criticizing the environmental movement have been appearing regularly in newspapers. According to Winslow, this is due not so much to an antienvironmental bias among the media as to a preference on the part of newspaper editors for articles that seem “daring” in that they seem to challenge prevailing political positions. It is true that editors like to run antienvironmental pieces mainly because they seem to challenge the political orthodoxy. But serious environmentalism is by no means politically orthodox, and antienvironmentalists can hardly claim to be dissidents, however much they may have succeeded in selling themselves as renegades.

Summary

Winslow believes that articles criticizing the environmental movement have been appearing in newspapers due to the desire of newspaper editors for articles that seem to challenge prevailing political positions. The commentator concedes that editors like to run antienvironmental pieces primarily because they like to challenge prevailing positions. But the commentator asserts that, despite what news editors might think, environmentalism isn’t actually the prevailing position.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Newspaper editors are selecting some stories on the basis of an inaccurate understanding of what is a prevailing position.

At least some people have an inaccurate understanding about the prevalence of serious environmentalism.

Winslow is correct about the preference of newspaper editors for controversial articles.

Strongly supported. The commentator acknowledges that editors like to run antienvironmental pieces because they like to challenge what they perceive to be prevailing positions. This preference can be characterized as a preference for “controversial” pieces.

Critics of environmentalism have not successfully promoted themselves as renegades.

Unsupported. The commentator asserts that antienvironmentalists are not actually dissidents, “however much they may have succeeded” in selling themselves as renegades. This acknowledges the critics may have succeeded in portraying themselves as renegades.

Winslow’s explanation is not consonant with the frequency with which critiques of environmentalism are published.

Unsupported. The commentator supports Winslow’s explanation about why newspaper editors have regularly published antienvironmentalist pieces. So, the stimulus doesn’t support a claim that the explanation is inconsistent with anything.

The position attacked by critics of environmentalism is actually the prevailing political position.

Antisupported. The commentator says that serious environmentalism is not the prevailing position. So, the position attacked by critics of environmentalism is not the prevailing position.

Serious environmentalism will eventually become a prevailing political position.

Unsupported. The commentator doesn’t say anything about the future of serious environmentalism.

LSAT 133 – Section 2 – Question 12

LSAT 133 - Section 2 - Question 12

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 133 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel