LSAT 138 – Section 2 – Question 26
LSAT 138 - Section 2 - Question 26
December 2012You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 0:46
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PT138 S2 Q26 |
+LR
| Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Causal Reasoning +CausR Net Effect +NetEff | A
4%
161
B
3%
156
C
3%
158
D
88%
165
E
1%
155
|
135 145 155 |
+Medium | 147.395 +SubsectionMedium |
Amar: Making it legal to keep those fish would probably lead to a lot more “accidents.”
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Amar implicitly concludes that Sarah’s recommendation to allow fishers to keep accidentally caught fish should not be implemented. He argues that making this legal would likely lead to more "accidents," implying that fishers would claim that certain fish were caught accidentally just so that they could keep the fish.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Amar responds to Sarah’s argument by pointing out that her suggestion would likely lead to a negative consequence: fishers claiming fish were caught accidentally in order to keep fish they caught illegally.
A
question whether Sarah’s recommendation can be put into practice
Amar never questions whether Sarah’s recommendation can practically be implemented. He simply argues that her recommendation would likely bring a negative consequence.
B
point out that Sarah used a crucial term in two distinct senses
Amar himself uses the term "accidents" to suggest that fishers would falsely claim they caught certain fish by accident. However, Sarah uses "accident" to mean a true accident, and Amar doesn't argue that she uses the term in two different ways.
C
allude to a factor that supposedly strengthens the case for Sarah’s recommendation
Amar doesn’t strengthen the case for Sarah’s recommendation, he argues against her recommendation.
D
contend that Sarah’s recommendation has an important negative consequence
Amar argues that Sarah’s recommendation has an important negative consequence: fishers claiming fish were caught accidentally in order to keep fish they caught illegally.
E
maintain that Sarah overlooks important lessons from past policies
Amar never mentions anything about past policies, he just argues that Sarah’s recommendation would have a negative consequence.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 138 Explanations
Section 1 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
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
- Question 26
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
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.