LSAT 144 – Section 3 – Question 03

LSAT 144 - Section 3 - Question 03

October 2015

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:55

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
PT144 S3 Q03
+LR
+Exp
Strengthen +Streng
Analogy +An
A
1%
154
B
2%
153
C
2%
151
D
93%
163
E
1%
153
132
140
147
 +Easier 145.106 +SubsectionEasier

Editorial: The legislature is considering allowing oil drilling in the Cape Simmons Nature Preserve. Supporters claim that, because modern drilling methods will be used, there will be no damage to the environment. However, that claim is easily disproven by looking at nearby Alphin Bay, where oil drilling began five years ago. The land there is marred by industrial sprawl, drilling platforms, and thousands of miles of roads and pipelines.

Summarize Argument
The editorialist concludes that, despite using modern drilling methods, oil drilling will cause environmental damage in Cape Simmons Nature Preserve. This claim is backed up by a comparison to an analogous case in Alphin Bay, where drilling which began five years ago has caused significant damage.

Notable Assumptions
The editorialist assumes that Cape Simmons and Alphin Bay are relevantly analogous. In other words, the land in Cape Simmons would suffer similar effects to Alphin Bay. This includes the assumption that modern oil drilling methods were used in Alphin Bay.

A
The Cape Simmons Nature Preserve is one of the few areas of pristine wilderness in the region.
The number of other areas of pristine wilderness in the region is irrelevant to whether the Cape Simmons Nature Preserve will suffer environmental damage from oil drilling.
B
The companies drilling for oil at Alphin Bay never claimed that drilling there would not cause any environmental damage.
Oil drilling companies’ claims about the effects of drilling in Alphin Bay are irrelevant to the editorialist’s argument about the effects of drilling in Cape Simmons.
C
The editorialist believes that oil drilling should not be allowed in a nature preserve unless it would cause no environmental damage.
The editorialist makes no claims about whether oil drilling should or should not be allowed due to causing environmental damage, only whether it will cause environmental damage in the first place.
D
There have been no significant changes in oil drilling methods in the last five years.
This justifies the editorialist’s assumption that the likely effects of oil drilling in Cape Simmons can be predicted from its effects in Alphin Bay, as the same modern drilling methods would be used in both cases.
E
Oil drilling is only one of several industrial activities that takes place at Alphin Bay.
This claim would potentially weaken the argument, as it provides possible alternate explanations for the environmental damage at Alphin Bay—namely, the other industrial activities taking place there. It certainly doesn’t strengthen.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 144 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply