LSAT 138 – Section 4 – Question 10

LSAT 138 - Section 4 - Question 10

December 2012

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:09

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 S4 Q10
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Math +Math
A
3%
158
B
12%
159
C
2%
156
D
81%
165
E
2%
155
129
143
157
 +Medium 146.393 +SubsectionMedium

Letter to the editor: Sites are needed for disposal of contaminated dredge spoils from the local harbor. However, the approach you propose would damage commercial fishing operations. One indication of this is that over 20,000 people have signed petitions opposing your approach and favoring instead the use of sand-capped pits in another area.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The letter writer argues that the editor’s plan for waste disposal will harm commercial fishing because many people signed petitions opposing it.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument is flawed because the evidence it cites is irrelevant to its conclusion. Just because people oppose the plan does not mean that the plan will damage fishing operations. These people could oppose the plan for any number of reasons. Even if they’re concerned about commercial fishing, there’s no reason to believe that they have the ability to accurately judge which plan is better for it. A group of random people opposing a plan tells us nothing about what the effects of that plan will be.

A
The argument distorts the editor’s view in a manner that makes that view seem more vulnerable to criticism.
The argument only refers to the editor’s proposal without even describing what it is, so there’s no distortion.
B
The argument fails to establish that the alternative approach referred to is a viable one.
The letter writer never endorses the plan to use sand-capped pits. He only claims that the editor’s proposal will harm commercial fishing.
C
The argument attempts to establish a particular conclusion because doing so is in the letter writer’s self-interest rather than because of any genuine concern for the truth of the matter.
There’s no reason to believe that the letter writer has a personal interest in this matter, nor is there any indication that he doesn’t care about the truth.
D
The argument’s conclusion is based on the testimony of people who have not been shown to have appropriate expertise.
This describes one of the problems with the evidence cited. There’s no reason to believe that the opinions of petition-signers indicate anything about what effects a waste-disposal plan will have on commercial fishing.
E
The argument takes for granted that no third option is available that will satisfy all the interested parties.
The writer’s conclusion is simply that the proposal in question will hurt commercial fishing. Whether there are other viable plans or not is irrelevant.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 138 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply