PrepTest 104

[lcid:3515] Prep Test 104 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

P: Complying with the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed/Flawed

Question Type

Methods of Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

P: The new regulations wouldn’t have prevented the lab fire, so they’re useless.
Q: The new regulations will prevent some accidents, and all accidents are costly. Regulations that prevent waste are useful (so the new regs are useful).

Answer Anticipation

Whenever a Methods of Reasoning question features a rebuttal, we should start with a couple considerations:
Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the first speaker’s conclusion? If she disagrees, does she think it’s wrong or unsupported? Does the second speaker agree or disagree with the first speaker’s premises? Logic/assumptions? Does she bring up a new consideration?
Here, Q reaches the opposite conclusion as P, so she disagrees with his conclusion. However, she doesn’t discuss the specific accident that P bases his argument on. Rather, she looks at accidents broadly, considering whether the new regs will prevent some accidents, not particular ones.
So Q brings in a new consideration - all accidents, not one particular one - in order to arrive at the opposite conclusion. Let’s find an answer that says something similar to that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    extending the basis for Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    Q extends the basis for assessing the utility of the new regs by looking at all accidents/whether they would prevent some accidents, rather than looking at just a single one. This answer describes her rebuttal, so it’s the correct answer.

  2. B
    citing additional evidence that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Q talks about accidents generally; she doesn’t look at the specific one that P mentions. So this answer is wrong in saying that Q’s rebuttal discusses “last year’s laboratory fire.”

  3. C
    giving examples to show Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Q speaks specifically about this set of safety regulations, so other regulations are out of scope.

  4. D
    showing that P's argument Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Q believes that regulations that would have prevented last year’s fire would have saved money and thus have been useful, so she doesn’t believe that the assumption stated here is false.

  5. E
    pointing out a crucial Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    That distinction isn’t really crucial. Q does make a statistical argument (about accidents generally, and some being prevented) versus P’s anecdotal argument (looking at one case), but that’s not the same as potential versus actual benefits, as the benefits Q discusses are actual benefits, they just apply only in certain cases.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion