LSAT 146 – Section 1 – Question 22

LSAT 146 - Section 1 - Question 22

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: 1:05

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 Q22
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Sampling +Smpl
A
78%
166
B
2%
154
C
6%
157
D
9%
158
E
5%
159
146
154
161
 +Harder 149.45 +SubsectionMedium

In 2005, an environmental group conducted a study measuring the levels of toxic chemicals in the bodies of eleven volunteers. Scientifically valid inferences could not be drawn from the study because of the small sample size, but the results were interesting nonetheless. Among the subjects tested, younger subjects showed much lower levels of PCBs—toxic chemicals that were banned in the 1970s. This proves that the regulation banning PCBs was effective in reducing human exposure to those chemicals.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the regulation banning PCBs was effective in reducing human exposure to those chemicals. This is based on a study that measured the levels of toxic chemicals in the bodies of 11 volunteers. Although scientifically valid inferences can’t be drawn from the study, the author states that the study showed that younger people showed much lower levels of PCBs than older people. PCBs were banned in the 1970s.

Identify and Describe Flaw
Despite acknowledging that we can’t draw scientifically valid inferences from the study due to its small sample size, the author proceeds to draw a conclusion based on that study. The author contradicts himself.

A
takes an inconsistent stance regarding the status of the inferences that can be drawn from the study
The author’s stance regarding whether we can draw valid inferences from the study is inconsistent. The author first says we can’t. But the author then tries to draw a conclusion.
B
overlooks the possibility that two or more chemicals produce the same effects
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument, because the reasoning doesn’t involve the effects of chemicals. The argument is based on a study that shows younger people in the study had lower levels of PCBs. The effects of PCBs, however, are not at issue.
C
concludes that a generalization has been proven true merely on the grounds that it has not been proven false
The author doesn’t reach the conclusion on the basis of a claim that nobody has proven that the regulation banning PCBs wasn’t effective. The conclusion is based on a study.
D
takes something to be the cause of a reduction when it could have been an effect of that reduction
It doesn’t make sense to think that a reduction in PCBs could cause the regulations banning PCBs. Not every cause and effect relationship can be reversed.
E
does not consider the possibility that PCBs have detrimental effects on human health several years after exposure
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument, because the reasoning doesn’t involve the effects of chemicals. The argument is based on a study that shows younger people in the study had lower levels of PCBs. The effects of PCBs, however, are not at issue.

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