LSAT 15 – Section 3 – Question 23

LSAT 15 - Section 3 - Question 23

June 1995

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

Target time: 1:18

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
PT15 S3 Q23
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
A
5%
159
B
17%
163
C
14%
161
D
23%
162
E
41%
167
158
168
179
 +Hardest 147.322 +SubsectionMedium

This is a strengthen question, and we know that because of the stem: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

Our stimulus tells us that asbestos (which they also include a nice little description of) poses health risks only if it’s disturbed and released into the environment. The author says that since removing it from buildings would disturb it, the government should not require the removal of all asbestos. This argument, as it stands, makes sense. You wouldn’t want to remove asbestos is disturbing it would cause harm. Our instinct is to be alarmed that anyone would support the idea of leaving asbestos in our walls and just living it. This argument assumes that the alternative (removing and putting it somewhere else) is worse.

Answer Choice (A) Plugging this back into the argument does not help the argument. We’re pointing out that asbestos is not as dangerous as all these other things, but that doesn’t strengthen the idea that the government should not require its removal.

Answer Choice (B) This is a conditional statement: if workers do not wear protective gear, asbestos can pose a health threat. What about if they do wear protective gear? Would there still be a threat? We don’t know! In other for this to interact with the stimulus, we would need to know that the workers are not wearing protective gear at the very least.

Answer Choice (C) These relative statements are meaningless: how much more? And is the less dangerous kind of asbestos dangerous in general? At what level? It could be that one is very dangerous, and the other is extremely dangerous. We’ve already said that asbestos, when disturbed, is dangerous - this relative statement does not do anything to strengthen the argument.

Answer Choice (D) This could potentially weaken the stimulus. They’re saying that since the asbestos will eventually get disturbed, what’s the point of preventing its removal now? This answer choice is essentially saying this restriction is unnecessary.

Answer Choice (E) This answer choice draws out a potential alternative proposal for removing asbestos and saying that it’s potentially dangerous: if we require that people remove all asbestos and then put it in a landfill (we can assume a landfill would be where opponents would want to dumb the asbestos), it’s still not safe.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 15 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logic Games

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply