LSAT 149 – Section 4 – Question 11

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
PT149 S4 Q11
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
39%
166
B
14%
162
C
12%
163
D
35%
158
E
1%
153
158
168
178
+Hardest 147.325 +SubsectionMedium

A group of citizens opposes developing a nearby abandoned railroad grade into a hiking trail. Its members argue that trail users will likely litter the area with food wrappers and other debris. But this objection is groundless. Most trail users will be dedicated hikers who have great concern for the environment. Consequently, development of the trail should proceed.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Some citizens argue that, because users of a proposed trail would likely litter an area, that the development of the trail should not proceed.

The author asserts that because most trail users will be dedicated hikers who care about the environment, the particular complaint about hikers’ likelihood to litter is groundless. Thus, the author concludes, trail development should proceed.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that showing the citizens’ support for their conclusion is wrong proves that the citizens’ conclusion is wrong. In other words, the author overlooks the possibility that even if the particular objection concerning littering is groundless, we still should not proceed with development of the trail.

A
bases its conclusion mainly on a claim that an opposing argument is weak
The author points out the citizens’ argument is weak — the citizens’ premise concerning likelihood of littering is groundless. But this doesn’t prove that trail development should proceed. The citizens’ conclusion can still be right, even if the argument in support of it is weak.
B
illicitly infers that because each member of a set has a certain property that set itself has the property
The author doesn’t cite to a premise stating that each member of a set (trail users) has great concern for the environment. The premise says “most” trail users will have great concern; this isn’t a claim about “each” trail user.
C
illicitly assumes as one of its premises the contention it purports to show
(C) describes circular reasoning. None of the author’s conclusions are assumed in the premise. The premise is that most trail users will have great concern for the environment; this idea is not restated in any of the author’s conclusions.
D
illicitly infers that an attribute of a few users of the proposed trail will characterize a majority of users of the trail
The author’s premise asserts that “most” trail users will have great concern for the environment. This is simply a fact that we accept as true, because it is a premise. The author did not try to infer this premise from some other claim about a few trail users.
E
attacks the citizens in the group rather than their objection to developing the trail
The author does not attack the citizens. The author attacks the argument the citizens gave in support of their conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

Leave a Reply