LSAT 134 – Section 1 – Question 25
You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 1:19
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PT134 S1 Q25 |
+LR
| Argument part +AP Net Effect +NetEff Value Judgment +ValJudg | A
7%
160
B
68%
166
C
6%
159
D
16%
162
E
2%
156
|
147 157 168 |
+Harder | 147.067 +SubsectionMedium |
Summarize Argument
The editorialist concludes that the voluntary garbage-sorting system should be retained. This is because the alternative, a mandatory garbage-sorting system, would foster resentment. In turn, many people would refuse to sort their garbage at all.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is a concession the editorialist makes about an alternative to the practice she recommends. It’s true that the town would spend less under a mandatory sorting system, but the editorialist suggests there are other things to consider.
A
It is a claim that the editorial is trying to show is false.
The editorialist concedes that the town wouldn’t have to spend as much under a mandatory system. He simply believes there are reasons to retain the current system.
B
It is a fact granted by the editorial that lends some support to an alternative to the practice that the editorial defends as preferable.
The editorialist agrees that the town wouldn’t have to spend as much under a mandatory system, which certainly supports installing such a system. Still, the editorialist defends the current system as a better option.
C
It is an example of a difficulty facing the claim that the editorial is attempting to refute.
The editorialist isn’t refuting a claim. Instead, he’s recommending one of two options.
D
It is a premise that the editorial’s argument relies on in reaching its conclusion.
The fact that a mandatory system would be less expensive doesn’t support the editorialist’s argument. It’s a fact he concedes about one option while arguing for the other.
E
It is the conclusion that the editorial’s argument purports to establish.
The editorialist doesn’t try to support the claim that a mandatory system would cost less. He argues instead for retaining a voluntary system.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 134 Explanations
Section 1 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 2 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 3 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.