Logical reasoning PrepTest 138 · Section 2 · Question 26

Incorrect. Amar's statements suggest he believes the recommendation could be put into practice and it would lead to a negative consequence.

Incorrect. The quotations around "accident" could suggest that Amar is referencing Sarah's statements and pointing out an equivocation. However, Sarah's argument uses the word in question to mean the same thing—unintentionally catching a certain fish. Also, Amar isn't highlighting different definitions of "accident" used by Sarah, but rather questioning whether these accidents are really accidents.

Incorrect. Amar isn't attempting to strengthen Sarah's argument, nor is he alluding to something that would do so. The fake "accidents" would be a reason not to make the change to the permits.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
S: Fishing boats that accidentally catch a fish they don't have a permit for have to throw it back, which usually kills the fish, so they should be allowed to keep them.

A: That'll lead to more "accidents."

Answer Anticipation:
You have to appreciate the use of finger quotes in an LSAT question.

Sarah's argument is about making a change—allowing fishing boats to keep fish they're not permitted for that they accidentally catch. This is because throwing those fish back—as they currently must do—usually results in the death of those fish, so it's wasteful.

Amar brings up a negative consequence of this—there would be more "accidents." The use of quotes on the LSAT will almost always mean that the speaker is quoting someone else, or using the word in a non-literal manner. Here, Amar isn't quoting Sarah, but rather highlighting that making it legal to keep these fish when caught accidentally will lead to fishing boats not really catching them accidentally, but saying it was accidental to keep the fish.

So Amar's response brings up a negative consequence of the change that Sarah suggests.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that Amar raises a negative consequence of the change Sarah suggests. While she's trying to prevent waste, Amar points out that her recommended solution would result in more fish that a boat isn't permitted for getting caught intentionally while the crew claims it was an accident. That increase in fish being caught without a permit for them is an important negative consequence.

Key Takeaway:
Throwing quotes around a word generally highlights that someone is quoting another argument (usually to point out an equivocation), or using the word in a non-literal manner. In this case, it was the latter—Amar was suggesting these "accidents" weren't accidents at all.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of the past or past policies—or any other policies, for that matter—so this answer is out of scope.