PrepTest 111
[lcid:3542] Prep Test 111 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
Opponent of offshore oil
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: D
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
Opponent: New wells in an area would only provide less than 1% of what we need, so it’s not worth the risk of drilling.
Proponent: That’s like saying we shouldn’t allow new farms since no farm can feed the whole country, so it’s ridiculous.
Answer Anticipation
This question asks us to describe the Proponent’s reply to the Opponent’s argument. Normally, when we’re describing a rebuttal, we go through a process of evaluating how the response addresses the premises and conclusion of the argument. However, when there are elements that suggest specific methods of reasoning, we should start there, instead.
Here, there are two features that suggest specific types of reasoning. First, the Proponent doesn’t argue just that the Opponent is wrong - she argues that his argument is “ridiculous.” Such an extreme conclusion generally gets reflected in the correct answer, and it’s usually related to a common method of reasoning called the Reduction to the Absurd. In this method of reasoning, the rebuttal shows that using the logic raised in the initial argument in a separate situation leads to a ridiculous conclusion.
And that brings up to the second feature - the Proponent brings up farming as an analogous situation to drilling. Since that aligns with the Reduction to the Absurd method of reasoning that her conclusion suggested, we can feel pretty confident that we’re looking for an answer describing it. Let’s find one saying that the Proponent shows that the Opponent’s argument is ridiculous by applying his logic to an analogous situation.
Answer choices
-
Aoffering evidence in support Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
There are two issues here. First, the Proponent doesn’t issue evidence in support of drilling - she offers evidence that the opposing point is ridiculous. Second, it’s not clear that her evidence is particularly decisive, as she’s talking about farming, whereas the Opponent has hard numbers! -
Bclaiming that the statistics Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
The Proponent doesn’t call the 4%/.5% numbers into question, instead focusing on farming. -
Cpointing out that the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
The Proponent questions the logic of the Opponent; she doesn’t think that he’s applying a valid argument form to a situation where it doesn’t apply. -
Dciting as parallel to Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
This answer highlights both features of the Proponent’s rebuttal that we noted. It describes the use of an analogous situation (“as parallel”) to show that the logic underlying the Opponent’s argument is ridiculous (“strikingly” unsupported). Since this answer correctly describes the rebuttal, it’s the correct answer. -
Eproposing a conclusion that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
The Proponent’s conclusion is that the Opponent’s conclusion is ridiculous. His evidence was at least somewhat related to proving his conclusion, so the Proponent’s conclusion isn’t supported by that evidence.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Questions 1 reply
Started by Anna20