Logical reasoning PrepTest 158 · Section 3 · Question 12

The statement-in-question is a premise. However, as described in the Answer Anticipation section above, the statement-in-question supports the conclusion that there probably will not be widespread efforts to tighten air pollution regulations. The claim that contaminated water presents a threat is another premise, not supported by anything in this argument.

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Prof. Shanaz notes that people only care about the most obvious public health problems. Like, there's now evidence that the air pollutant ozone can create health problems for asthmatic people even at legal levels, but most people know that contaminated rainwater presents a more apparent health threat. The professor concludes that there will probably not be a widespread movement to tighten up the air pollution regulations.

Strategy Overview:

1. Identify the conclusion
2. Identify the premies
3. Determine the role played by the statement from the question stem.
   1. For example …
      1. Premise
      2. Main conclusion
      3. Subsidiary conclusion
4. Find the answer choice that correctly expresses the role

Answer Anticipation:
On an Argument Structure question, an experienced test taker will first thoroughly deconstruct and understand the entire argument in the passage. Even though our job is to understand the role of the statement in the question stem, the benefits of understanding the whole argument are twofold. First, trying to figure out the role of the statement-in-question too early and without considering the entire argument can sometimes bias us and lead to an incorrect determination. Second, many answer choices will require us to know the roles of multiple propositions. (For instance, if the statement-in-question is a subsidiary conclusion, we'll probably also need to know which premise supports the statement-in-question and which conclusion the subsidiary conclusion supports.)

So let's break down the professor's entire argument, starting with the conclusion. The last sentence, which uses the conclusory term "Hence" is likely the conclusion. Moreover, the last sentence predicts that we probably will not get widespread efforts to further restrict air pollution; predictions are usually conclusions.

What are the other claims doing in this professor's argument? The first sentence, claiming that people usually only care about "the most obvious public health problems," sounds like a principle — a general rule applied as a premise. That principle then gets applied in the second sentence. In that sentence, the professor claims that the air pollutant ozone presents a health threat to asthmatic people even at legal levels, but people are aware that contaminated water is a more immediate threat. In other words, the professor identifies a health problem — air pollutants — that is not viewed as one of the most obvious health problems. That allows the professor to conclude that people won't care too much about air pollutants, and a widespread effort to further restrict air pollution is unlikely. (The professor is taking the contrapositive, more or less, so this line of reasoning should feel familiar.)

So, now that we have broken down the entire argument, we can determine what role the statement from the question stem serves. The claim in question is, "people generally notice and are concerned about only the most obvious public health problems." As discussed above, that claim is a principle, or a premise, that supports the main conclusion when applied to the other premises about air pollution and contaminated water.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This is it. As described in the Answer Anticipation section above, the statement-in-question is a premise. And it supports, as this answer choice states, the conclusion that there probably will not be widespread efforts to tighten air pollution regulations. This answer choice correctly identifies the role of the statement-in-question and accurately describes the conclusion of the argument, so it is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
"Applying a general principle" is a common argumentative technique employed across many questions on the LSAT. Identifying this technique can be helpful on Argument Structure questions, especially if you remember that the principle is always used as a premise in these arguments.

The statement-in-question is a principle about public health issues in general. It doesn't offer any specific insight into the contaminated water problem. Rather, the statement is used as a premise to support the conclusion that there probably will not be widespread efforts to tighten air pollution regulations. This answer choice neglects to mention that function, so it is incorrect.

The statement-in-question is used as evidence. However, as described in the Answer Anticipation section above, the statement-in-question supports the conclusion that there probably will not be widespread efforts to tighten air pollution regulations. The claim that ozone can be dangerous for asthmatic people is another premise, not supported by anything in this argument.

As described in the Answer Anticipation section above, the statement-in-question is a premise. The argument's main conclusion is that there probably will not be widespread efforts to tighten air pollution regulations.