Logical reasoning PrepTest 111 · Section 1 · Question 8

Incorrect. First, it's suggested in the argument that sewage isn't really harmful to lobsters since they don't live long enough to be harmed by the disease that is associated with it, so other contaminants being equally harmful would mean they're not—and maybe we should just dump everything in the harbor. Second, the proposal is specifically about sewage, so this answer is also out of scope.

Incorrect. First, "longer" might still be too short to be harmed by gill disease. Second the lobsters in question and the ones that the proposal is meant to protect live in the harbor so other lobsters are out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer establishes that one particular potential downside to the proposal—changing the amount of lobsters in the harbor—won't happen. But that doesn't establish that the proposal has a point, just that it doesn't have a particular downside.

Incorrect. Since the gill disease doesn't harm the lobster, being unable to detect it isn't a problem, and thus there still isn't a point to the proposal.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Problem — Lobsters get gill disease when in sewage—y water
Proposal — Dump the sewage away from where the lobsters are caught
Opinion on Proposal — It's pointless
Reasoning — Lobsters don't live long enough to be harmed by gill disease

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus presents a problem and a potential solution, but it's not a solution that the author agrees with—in fact, she claims that it's "pointless." In a problem/solution argument where the author doesn't present her own solution her opinion of another solution is almost certainly the main point. Since there's a reason given for why the proposal is "pointless" that's the case here, and the main point is the pointlessness of the proposal.

To weaken an argument that concludes a proposal is pointless one needs only to present a single reason why it might be a good idea. Here, the author believes the proposal is pointless because it prevents gill disease in lobsters, but they don't live long enough to be harmed by it. However, the lobsters aren't the only one we're concerned about! These crustaceans are noted as being eaten by humans, so if gill disease (or eating a sewage—y lobster) has a negative impact on humans, then there's a point to the proposal. Let's find an answer pointing that out.

Answer Explanation:
If humans are negatively affected by gill disease, then even if the proposal won't stop lobsters from being harmed by the disease, it could stop humans from getting sick from eating lobsters with it, thus providing a point to the proposal and weakening the conclusion that it's pointless.

Key Takeaway:
Compare this question to question #4 in the section. Both have someone arguing that a course of action is pointless and both are weakened by establishing a point to following that course of action. Noting these questions that are, for all intents and purposes, the same question with a different topic can really help you to see and understand the repeating patterns on the LSAT, so be on the lookout for them!