PrepTest 156

[lcid:3723] Prep Test 156 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Land developer: In a Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument Anticipate why the premises are not enough to prove that the conclusion is true
Checking to see if a common logical fallacy is committed is very helpful

Answer Anticipation

On an Errors in Reasoning question, we should take the time to articulate why the premise or premises aren't enough to prove that the conclusion is true. In this argument's conclusion, the land developer makes a prediction. The land developer predicts that if we removed these regulations that prevent landowners from building on land with endangered species, the endangered species probably won't be harmed. That's an odd prediction. Why wouldn't removing a regulation intended to protect endangered species harm those species? The landowner's premises provide some insight. This regulation makes endangered species a financial liability for landowners, so they're not incentivized to protect the endangered species. If a landowner knows a few black rhinos are sitting on the landowner's property, the regulations might, in fact, incentivize the landowner to make a few black rhinos disappear. Then, that landowner could finally build on their land. So, we definitely have reason to believe this regulation has its drawbacks. But, the land developer's prediction makes the regulation seem like it only has drawbacks. When an argument only focuses on something's drawbacks, the flaw is usually that the argument overlooks any benefits. In this case, the regulations could still benefit endangered species, even if the landowners are discouraged from protecting those species. After all, the prohibition on building on these lands may help many endangered species repopulate! Removing these regulations will allow landowners to build on lands where endangered species live, perhaps further decreasing these species' populations. So, the correct answer will likely say that the land developer overlooks the ways these regulations may benefit endangered species. Let's look for that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    It confuses a condition Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    This word salad of an answer choice sounds brings up a lot of familiar words ("condition whose presence would be required") that show up in the correct answer when the flaw is related to the misuse of an "if-then" statement. While the passage features some "if-then" statements, we didn't notice the land developer just flip the order of the "if" and "then" conditions or just negate the "if" and "then" conditions, or any other common flaw related to "if-then" statements. Therefore, we can eliminate this answer choice without thinking about it too deeply.

    However, if you need to take a closer look at this answer choice, let's break down this confusingly worded answer choice. It's saying that the land developer confuses a condition — let's call it "X" — whose presence would be required to produce a result (Result → X) with a condition that would be required to prevent a result (NOT result → X). In other words, this answer choice says that the land developer thinks that the same condition is needed for a result to occur and not occur.

    The land developer never considers such a condition. The land developer makes two "if-then" statements in this argument. The land developer's premise essentially says, "If any endangered species is on a landowner's land in a nation, the landowners cannot build on that land." The land developer's conclusion essentially says, "If we removed these regulations, the endangered species would probably not be harmed." These "if-then" statements feature different "then" conditions (and the "if" conditions are not a result occurring and the same result not occurring). Therefore, this answer choice doesn't describe the flaw in the land developer's argument.

  2. B
    It justifies a claim Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    This is not an error in the land developer's reasoning. The land developer's conclusion doesn't contain any "value judgments" or opinions. The land developer doesn't conclude that these regulations are "good" or "bad," "justified" or "unjustified," or whether we "should" or "should not" keep the regulations. Instead, the land developer's conclusion is factual — if we get rid of the regulations, endangered species probably won't be harmed. Therefore, this answer choice misdescribes the land developer's argument.

  3. C
    It unjustifiably overlooks the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    This is another confusingly worded answer choice, but it refers to "countervailing effects" that the land developer overlooks. That's pretty close to our anticipation, so we should take a closer look at this answer choice.

    When an Errors in Reasoning answer choice starts with "overlooks the possibility," we should ask, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

    The land developer says the regulations "tend to produce a given effect." The land developer claims that the regulations discourage landowners from protecting endangered species. If it's true that these regulations "may be likely to produce stronger countervailing effects as well," this answer choice would definitely weaken the land developer's argument. "Countervailing" means "opposite" or "offsetting." So, if the land developer overlooks that the regulations could produce stronger positive effects, then removing the regulations could seriously harm endangered species.

    Since this answer choice matches our anticipation and passes our analysis, we can justifiably select it and advance to the following question.

  4. D
    It fails to take Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    When an Errors in Reasoning answer choice starts with "fails to take into account the possibility," we should ask, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

    This wouldn't weaken the land developer's argument. The land developer's conclusion doesn't address whether the regulations are in the interest of landowners or land developers. Instead, the conclusion addresses whether removing the regulations would harm endangered species. So, this fact is irrelevant to the land developer's conclusion.

    Moreover, we know these regulations aren't in landowners' interest (since they make endangered species "a severe financial liability"). Presumably, these regulations are not in the interest of land developers either (since they can't develop on land where endangered species are present). But, even if there are some policies that are in landowners' interest but not land developers', we know these regulations are not among those policies.

  5. E
    It fails to account Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    When an Errors in Reasoning answer choice starts with "fails to account," we should ask, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

    This wouldn't weaken the land developer's argument. The land developer's conclusion addresses whether removing the regulations would harm endangered species. The reactions of private landowners who do not have endangered species on their land wouldn't change whether removing the regulations would harm endangered species. So, this fact is irrelevant to the land developer's conclusion.

Discussion

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

View all discussions Start a discussion