LSAT 146 – Section 1 – Question 03

LSAT 146 - Section 1 - Question 03

June 2016

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:02

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
PT146 S1 Q03
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Net Effect +NetEff
A
90%
164
B
3%
158
C
0%
146
D
3%
160
E
2%
155
128
139
150
 +Easier 149.45 +SubsectionMedium

Flynn: Allowing people to collect large damage awards when they successfully sue corporations that produce dangerous products clearly benefits consumers, since the possibility of large awards gives corporations a strong incentive to reduce safety risks associated with their products.

Garcia: Without sensible limits, damage awards can be so high that corporations are destroyed. As a result, employees lose their jobs and the productivity of the corporation is lost. This harms the economy and thus harms consumers.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Flynn concludes that allowing people to get large damage awards in lawsuits against corporations that produce dangerous products is beneficial for consumers. This is because he thinks the possibility of having to pay large damages creates an incentive for corporations to make products more safe.
Garcia disagrees and concludes that large damage awards harm consumers. This is because he thinks paying large damages can destroy corporations, which leads to job loss and loss of productivity, which hurts the economy.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Garcia points out potential harms of large damage awards.

A
arguing that the policy supported in Flynn’s argument could have undesirable consequences
Garcia argues that the policy supported by Flynn (allowing large damage awards against corporations) could have the undesirable consequences of job loss and damage to the economy.
B
providing evidence that undermines one of the premises of Flynn’s argument
Garcia never suggests that large damage awards don’t create an incentive to make products safer. So Garcia doesn’t undermine Flynn’s premise.
C
comparing Flynn’s argument to an obviously flawed argument that has the same logical structure
Garcia doesn’t compare Flynn’s argument to another argument. There is no analogous argument that Garcia brings up.
D
contending that Flynn’s argument could be used to support a policy that is inconsistent with the policy that Flynn advocates
The policy Flynn advocates is allowing large damage awards against corporations. Garcia never suggests that Flynn’s own argument supports disallowing large damage awards. Garcia presents his own, separate argument from Flynn’s against large damage awards.
E
providing an alternative explanation for a situation described in Flynn’s argument
Neither person is trying to explain a situation. They’re advocating for or against allowing large damage awards against corporations.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 146 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply