Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 1 · Question 7

Incorrect. The number of airports studied in the numerous studies cited by the Editorialist isn't listed, so we can't assume that it was "very limited."

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
City council Ð We can increase air traffic beyond the initial design capacity without decreasing safety by using new technology.
Editorialist Ð Studies from 30 years ago show that technology didn't let airports increase traffic safely, so it won't work now.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever the LSAT brings up a timeline or specific time period, pay attention. Here, the Editorialist's argument relies on studies done on technology from 30 years ago, not studies on the "latest safety technology" that the city council wants to purchase. Technology has changed quite a bit in the past 30 years, and so failing to consider the new technology and relying on studies from 30 years ago is a big flaw in this argument. Any answer highlighting that the studies aren't shown to be applicable to the modern situation will be correct.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the studies being cited are dated. While the latest technology may not have allowed for a safe increase in air traffic 30 years ago, new technology might, in fact, make that increase possible. By failing to consider the specifics of the latest technology, the Editorialist's argument is flawed.

Key Takeaway:
Any time an argument establishes a timeline or discusses a time period, make sure that it also establishes that things from the past still apply today. Things change, and what used to be true might not be true any longer.

Incorrect. The Editorialist might believe that the city council is aware of these studies but is disregarding them.

Incorrect. This absence of evidence answer does describe a common flaw, but not the one present here. The Editorialist doesn't cite a shortcoming in the city council's argument to establish her conclusion—she cites her own premises/studies.

Incorrect. The Editorialist's conclusion is limited to stating that increasing traffic would decrease safety. If her conclusion had been about net benefit or whether the increase should happen, then this answer would be in play.