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: 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

Weaken 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

In this question, we’re focusing on weakening the response of the Proponent to the Opponent’s argument.
We just finished a question that asked us to describe her method of reasoning, and there are certain flaws associated with certain methods of reasoning. In this case, the Proponent relies on an analogous situation to drive home her point - she looks at farming to make an argument about the oil drilling business. Whenever an argument relies on a comparison or analogy, it’s assuming that the two situations are relevantly similar.
Here, the Proponent is assuming that farming is similar to oil drilling, so to weaken that, we should look for an answer bringing up a relevant difference between the two.

Answer choices

  1. A
    New farms do not Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    The debate, as framed by the Opponent, is about whether the new oil wells will be “worth the risk,” determining that they’re not. The Proponent disagrees with that based on her discussion of farming. This answer establishes that farming and oil drilling are relevantly different - one involves risk, and the other doesn’t. That calls into question the applicability of her analogy, weakening her argument, so this is the correct answer.
  2. B
    Many of the largest Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The debate isn’t over whether it’s better to use a certain plot of land for farming or drilling, but rather whether drilling is a good idea. This answer is therefore out of scope.
  3. C
    Unlike oil, common agricultural Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    While this answer does establish a difference between the two situations, it isn’t a relevant one. The different uses for whatever is the output of the land doesn’t speak directly to whether the percentage of the required amount of that resource justifies the risk of using land for it.
  4. D
    Legislation governing new oil Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Legislation is out of scope of an argument on whether or not something is worth the risk.
  5. E
    The country under discussion Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    This answer is another difference between the two uses of land, but it’s another one that isn’t relevant. Without tying this directly into the measurement of risk vs. reward, it’s unclear how it would affect the argument.

What this tests

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion