LSAT 146 – Section 1 – Question 07

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:25

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 Q07
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
4%
158
B
85%
165
C
4%
156
D
7%
158
E
1%
156
138
147
156
+Medium 149.45 +SubsectionMedium

Editorialist: The city council is considering increasing the amount of air traffic allowed at the airport beyond its original design capacity. Several council members say that this increase would not decrease safety as it would be accompanied by the purchase of the latest safety technology. But in fact it would decrease safety. Numerous studies conducted 30 years ago show that safety was reduced at every airport where the permitted level of traffic was increased beyond the airport’s original design capacity, even when those airports made use of the latest safety technology.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that increasing air traffic allowed at the airport beyond its original design capacity would decrease safety. This is based on studies done 30 years ago, which showed that safety was reduced at every airport where the permitted air traffic was increased beyond the airport’s original design capacity, even when those airports made use of the latest (as of 30 years ago) safety technology.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the latest safety technology today is significantly more advanced than the latest safety technology as of 30 years ago. In other words, perhaps the results obtained in the studies from 30 years ago aren’t very relevant to what would happen as a result of increased air traffic today, due to better technology.

A
The argument draws a conclusion on the basis of a general statement that has in turn been inferred from a very limited number of particular instances.
The argument is based on numerous studies. We have no reason to think that these numerous studies are only a “very limited number of particular instances.”
B
The argument fails to consider the possibility that whether an airport can allow more air traffic than it was originally designed for without reducing safety depends largely on what the latest technology is.
(B) points out that the latest technology (as of today) might allow for more air traffic safely, even though older technology didn’t. What was the “latest” technology 30 years ago isn’t necessarily the latest technology today.
C
The argument fails to consider the possibility that the city council members who support the increase are aware of the studies that were conducted 30 years ago.
The argument’s reasoning has nothing to do with the city council members. The argument is based on the numerous studies conducted 30 years ago. Whether people who disagree with the author are aware of those studies doesn’t affect the reasoning.
D
The argument confuses an absence of evidence for the claim that the airport can safely permit air traffic in excess of its original design capacity with the existence of evidence against this claim.
The argument’s reasoning doesn’t point out that there’s a lack of evidence for the view that airports can safely increase air traffic. The reasoning is based on studies from 30 years ago.
E
The argument fails to consider that a slight increase in safety risks might be acceptable if it yields overriding benefits of another kind.
The author doesn’t conclude that we should increase air traffic. So whether risks are acceptable or not are irrelevant. The conclusion is simply that increasing air traffic beyond original capacity will decrease safety.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

Leave a Reply