PrepTest 137

Incorrect. This answer is a premise/background tacked onto the conclusion, not the conclusion itself. While this could be included in a correct answer, without referencing prosperity, it can't be the entire main point.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
People with higher incomes buy polluting items, and countries with recession see carbon emission drops, so prosperity is a factor in pollution.

Answer Anticipation:
The first statement is a causal one, and, on the LSAT, those tend to be conclusions (of arguments with correlation/causation flaws). The statements that follow do provide correlations to support this causal relationship. These statements are also connected with a keyword indicating they serve the same role in the argument ("also"), and thus they're likely both premises instead of equal conclusions.

So the logic of this argument points to the first statement being the main point, and that aligns with the trend on the LSAT of having causal statements be conclusions.

There is one wrinkle here—an intermediate conclusion ("thereby producing more carbon dioxide"), but it's more of a throwaway line to tie that first correlation together.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the causal conclusion that the argument backs up with some correlations, so this is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
Causal statements can be premises, but they tend to be conclusions on the LSAT.

Incorrect. This is one of the two correlations supporting the causal conclusion, so it's a premise.

Incorrect. This is the second of two correlations supporting the causal conclusion, so it's a premise.

Incorrect. This answer reflects a premise/intermediate conclusion representing the first correlation supporting the main point.