PrepTest 146
[lcid:3680] Prep Test 146 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
In 2005, an environmental
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.
Question Type
Errors in Reasoning Questions
Answer choices
-
Atakes an inconsistent stance Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A matches the stem
Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument
Valid or Flawed:
Flawed
Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning
Stimulus Summary:
A study had a sample that was too small to draw conclusions from, but it did show that younger subjects had less of a toxin, so a ban must have worked.
Answer Anticipation:
It's always interesting to see an argument that points out a potential flaw! Here, the stimulus establishes that the study in question had a sample that was too small to lead to "valid inferences"—gotta love recognition of a sampling flaw.
However, the argument then goes on to draw an inference from the results of the study! It states that the study "proves" regulations worked. You can't say a study has too small of a sample to draw an inference and then use it to draw an inference.
This argument contradicts itself in how it treats the study, so the correct answer should highlight this shift.
Answer Explanation:
The argument starts by treating the study as being too small to allow for inferences. It then inconsistently uses it to draw an inference. This answer reflects that shift and is thus correct.
Key Takeaway:
While rare, there are some examples of self-contradictory arguments on the LSAT. Make sure that the author of the argument is contradicting an earlier statement from their argument and not from an opposing point! -
Boverlooks the possibility that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. The study looked at the levels of the chemical in individuals, it didn't look at effects as a proxy for levels of the chemical. As such, multiple chemicals having the same effect wouldn't impact this argument. -
Cconcludes that a generalization Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. The generalization in the conclusion is based on a study, not on a flaw in an opposing point attempting to disprove it. -
Dtakes something to be Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. It's hard to see how regulations banning a chemical could be the result of that chemical being used less. Reversed causality doesn't make sense in this case! -
Edoes not consider the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. The ban was in the 70s and the study was done in 2005, so more than "several years" have passed since the ban. Additionally, the stimulus discusses PCB levels, not PCB effects.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Please explain 2 replies
Started by 3tromero