LSAT 148 – Section 1 – Question 07

LSAT 148 - Section 1 - Question 07

December 2016

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

Target time: 0:51

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
PT148 S1 Q07
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Net Effect +NetEff
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
0%
140
B
3%
153
C
0%
144
D
96%
163
E
1%
151
130
137
144
 +Easier 142.771 +SubsectionEasier

Peraski: Although driving gas-guzzling automobiles produces a greater level of pollution than driving smaller cars, those of us who drive smaller cars when we could use a bicycle cannot speak out against the use of gas guzzlers. We would be revealing our hypocrisy.

Jackson: I acknowledge I could do better in this area. But, it would be worse not to speak out against greater sources of pollution just because I am being hypocritical.

Speaker 1 Summary
Peraski concludes that people who drive smaller cars cannot complain about larger cars that use more gas. This is because doing so would constitute hypocrisy, given the existence of bicycles, which use less gas than the smaller cars.

Speaker 2 Summary
Jackson asserts that it’s better to speak out against greater sources of pollution even if that would make one a hypocrite.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether the fact a position would make one a hypocrite should stop one from advocating for that position.

A
driving a gas-guzzling automobile produces a greater level of pollution than driving a smaller car
Jackson either expresses no opinion, or the speakers agree. Jackson doesn’t comment on larger vs. smaller cars. You might read his statements as implicitly about the complaint that larger cars use more gas than smaller cars, in which case he shares Peraski’s view.
B
speaking out against the use of gas guzzlers despite driving in situations in which one could use a bicycle reveals hypocrisy
Jackson has no opinion. Jackson doesn’t strictly commit to the view that anything is hypocritical; he only says we shouldn’t withhold criticism even if that criticism is hypocritical. If you view his statements as acknowledging hypocrisy, then the speakers agree.
C
driving even a small car when one could use a bicycle contributes to the level of pollution
Jackson has no opinion. He doesn’t comment on small cars and pollution. If you view his statements as implicitly about the exact same situation Peraski discussed, then Jackson shares Peraski’s view about this.
D
one should speak out against polluting even if doing so reveals one’s own hypocrisy
This is a point of disagreement. Peraski believes one shouldn’t speak out against a practice that pollutes if it would reveal one’s own hypocrisy. Jackson believers one should speak out against that practice even if it reveals one’s own hypocrisy.
E
there is no moral difference between driving a gas guzzler and driving a smaller car
Neither expresses an opinion. Nobody comments on whether there are any moral differences between driving a larger car and driving a smaller car. There may or may not be moral differences unrelated to pollution.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 148 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply