Logical reasoning PrepTest 141 · Section 4 · Question 14

Incorrect. The Environmentalist doesn't state that lowering pollution is a necessary condition for having the price of gas reflect its (environmental) costs.

Incorrect. The Environmentalist does believe that higher taxes would result in less pollution, but that doesn't come from awareness of environmental problems—it comes from people using less gas since it costs more.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Cars pollute, but gas prices don't reflect the environmental costs, so it doesn't influence consumer behavior. Increased taxes would result in less pollution.

Answer Anticipation:
There's a lot of information about costs and pollution here, but the phrase that jumps out is in that last clause—"as a result." That's causal language, suggesting that the increased taxes would cause there to be less pollution. Why? Because then the costs would influence consumer decisions. That's likely to be reflected in the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the connection that the Environmentalist draws between higher taxes and less pollution. The cost of gas doesn't reflect environmental costs of pollution, and so it doesn't affect consumer decisions. Higher taxes would "result" in less pollution, thus justifying this answer.

Key Takeaway:
The common types of logic the LSAT tests again and again also show up in Must Be True questions—frequently as the elements in the stimulus that lead to the correct answer. Note comparisons, causality, and conditional relationships when they come up! Additionally, note strong language in answer choices. Without similarly strong language in the stimulus to back them up, they can be quickly eliminated.

Incorrect. The Environmentalist states that the cost of gasoline is considered by consumers when considering how much to drive, but it's not laid out as the only consideration.

Incorrect. While the Environmentalist believes that consumers giving more consideration to the cost of pollution will reduce that pollution, she never states that it's the only thing that can reduce pollution.