LSAT 137 – Section 4 – Question 01

LSAT 137 - Section 4 - Question 01

October 2012

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

Target time: 0:42

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
PT137 S4 Q01	+LR	Main conclusion or main point +MC Causal Reasoning +CausR	A 2% 152 B 95% 164 C 1% 152 D 0% 144 E 2% 155	132 139 146	+Easier	146.883 +SubsectionMedium

Economist: Prosperity is a driving force behind increases in the release of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming. As incomes rise, more people spend money on energy-consuming devices such as cars, thereby producing more carbon dioxide. Also, in countries that experienced deep economic recessions, there were steep drops in carbon dioxide emissions.

Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation

Prosperity increases carbon dioxide emissions, which drive global warming. As people become wealthier, they buy more energy-consuming items like cars, leading to higher emissions. Conversely, when countries experience economic recessions—when prosperity drops—they see significant decreases in carbon dioxide levels.

Identify Conclusion

The main conclusion is the economist’s hypothesis that prosperity drives higher carbon dioxide levels, the main cause of global warming.

Carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming.

This is context. It gives the background needed to understand the argument by explaining why the author is discussing carbon dioxide emissions. The main conclusion, however, is that prosperity increases carbon dioxide emissions, not that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

Prosperity is an important cause of increases in the release of carbon dioxide.

This accurately captures the argument's main conclusion that prosperity drives increased carbon dioxide emissions, simply rephrasing "driving force" as "important cause."

When incomes rise, more people spend money on energy-consuming devices.

This restates part of the argument's first premise. The fact that rising incomes lead to more spending on energy-consuming devices supports the author's conclusion by providing evidence that increased prosperity results in higher carbon dioxide emissions.

Countries that experienced deep economic recessions also experienced steep drops in carbon dioxide emissions.

This restates the argument's second premise. The fact that countries in recession saw steep drops in carbon emissions shows that without prosperity, emissions fall. Thus, prosperity likely causes increased carbon dioxide emissions.

When people spend money on energy-consuming devices, more carbon dioxide is produced as a result.

This restates part of the argument's first premise. The fact that energy-consuming devices cause increased carbon dioxide makes it more likely that prosperity, which leads people to buy more of these devices, is a driving force behind rising carbon dioxide emissions.

LSAT 137 – Section 4 – Question 01

LSAT 137 - Section 4 - Question 01

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 137 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel