LSAT 155 – Section 2 – Question 13

LSAT 155 - Section 2 - Question 13

November 2019

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:04

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
PT155 S2 Q13
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
87%
161
B
2%
144
C
1%
150
D
3%
151
E
7%
151
136
143
151
 +Medium 145.934 +SubsectionMedium

Commentator: The worldwide oil crisis of 1973 was not due to any real shortage of oil, but was the result of collusion between international oil companies and oil-producing countries to artificially restrict the supply of oil in order to profit from higher prices. This is shown by the fact that after 1973 the profits of oil companies showed large increases, as did the incomes of oil-producing countries.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that the oil crisis of 1973 was due to collusion between oil companies and oil-producing countries. This is based on the fact that after 1973, the profits of oil companies increased, and the incomes of oil-producing companies also increased.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that because oil companies and oil-producing countries benefited from the oil crisis, that they must have played a role in causing the oil crisis. This overlooks the possibility that they simply benefited from an event that they did not cause.

A
fails to consider the possibility that a party can benefit from an event without helping to bring about that event
This possibility shows why the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. If something can benefit from an event without helping to cause it, then the fact certain companies and countries benefited from the oil crisis does not prove that they caused it.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that oil companies and oil-producing countries were the only parties to benefit from the 1973 oil crisis
If other parties benefited, too, that doesn’t undermine the argument’s reasoning. The author might believe those other parties were also contributory factors in the oil crisis of 1973.
C
rests on using the term “profit” in an ambiguous way
The word “profit” is not used to mean two different things. “Profit” is used to mean financial gain.
D
fails to establish that there was a worldwide oil surplus prior to the crisis of 1973
There is no need to establish that there was a surplus in order to show that certain parties caused a reduction in available oil later.
E
fails to consider the possibility that events that occur simultaneously can be causally related
The author doesn’t overlook this possibility. In fact, the author’s conclusion assumes that the increased profits and income of oil companies and oil-producing countries are causally related to each other.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 155 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply