LSAT 151 – Section 2 – Question 03

LSAT 151 - Section 2 - Question 03

September 2018

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:10

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
PT151 S2 Q03
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
2%
153
B
1%
151
C
0%
147
D
96%
161
E
1%
146
122
130
139
 +Easiest 147.144 +SubsectionMedium

Legislator: A foreign company is attempting to buy FerroMetal, a domestic iron-mining company. We should prohibit this sale. Since manufacturing is central to our economy, we need a dependable supply of iron ore. If we allow a foreign company to buy FerroMetal, we will have no grounds to stop foreign companies from buying other iron-mining companies. Soon foreigners will control most of the iron mining here, leaving our manufacturers at their mercy. The end result will be that our manufacturers will no longer be able to rely on a domestic supply of iron ore.

Summarize Argument
The legislator concludes that the sale of FerroMetal should be prohibited. He supports this by saying that manufacturing is crucial to the economy, so the country needs a reliable supply of iron ore. And if a foreign company buys FerroMetal, it would lead to more foreign control over iron mining, eventually making it impossible for manufacturers to rely on domestic iron ore.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The legislator assumes that selling FerroMetal would lead to foreign control over iron mining, which would make it impossible for manufacturers to rely on domestic iron ore. But he doesn’t give any evidence that the sale of FerroMetal would actually cause this chain of consequences, nor does he consider other possible outcomes.

A
The argument draws a conclusion that simply restates a premise presented in support of that conclusion.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the argument’s conclusion merely restates one of its premises. The legislator doesn’t make this mistake. His premises don’t support his conclusion well, but they are distinct from his conclusion.
B
The argument takes for granted that what is true of one particular industry is true of industry in general.
The legislator doesn’t assume that what’s true of the iron industry is true of industry in general. Instead, he assumes that the sale of FerroMetal will lead to a long chain of consequences within the iron industry.
C
The argument defends a practice solely on the grounds that the practice is widely accepted.
The legislator argues that the sale should be prohibited, but not on the grounds that prohibiting the sale is widely accepted. Instead, he argues that the sale should be prohibited because it will lead to a chain of negative consequences for iron companies and manufacturers.
D
The argument presents a chain of possible consequences of a given event as if it were the only possible chain of consequences of that event.
The legislator assumes that the sale of FerroMetal will inevitably lead to a chain of possible consequences. He never provides any evidence that it will actually cause these consequences, nor does he consider other potential outcomes.
E
The argument concludes that one event would cause a second event even though the second event would have to precede the first.
The legislator argues that the sale of FerroMetal would cause multiple other events, but there’s no reason to believe that those events would have to precede the sale of FerroMetal.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 151 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply