PrepTest 112

[lcid:3546] Prep Test 112 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Scientists agree that ingesting 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

Facts

Valid or Flawed

NA

Question Type

Paradox Questions

Stimulus Summary

Lead is bad for kids, but removing it from paint in old apartment buildings will result in more lead being ingested.

Answer Anticipation

As with all Paradox questions, we should start by clearly defining the paradox. As with many Paradox questions, this paradox deals with a comparison.
The baseline belief of the scientists here is that lead is bad for kids. This, coupled with the fact that there’s a lot of lead paint in old apartment buildings, might lead you to believe that it would be good to remove that lead paint. However, the scientists actually believe that this will increase the amount of lead that children will ingest. Note that the paradox isn’t that they recommend against removing the paint - it’s that they believe removing the lead will increase the amount kids ingest. Why would removing it from where the kids are living result in them ingesting more of it? That doesn’t seem to make sense.
There must be something that changes from the paint being in the walls to being removed that increases the lead that can be ingested by children. Maybe it kicks the lead up into the air, or removing it leaves traces in the carpet. Or maybe, when in paint form, it’s not ingestible (unless the kid eats a wall). Let’s find an answer raising one of these, or a similar, possibility.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Lead–free paints contain substances Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The paradox is that removing lead paint will increase the amount of lead the kids ingest, not that it’ll improve overall health. As such, this answer is out of scope because it doesn’t address the increased lead ingestion levels.
  2. B
    The money required to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Similar to (A), this answer addresses the overall health of children, while the paradox surrounded the increased lead ingestion rate with the lead paint removed. It doesn’t resolve that paradox, so it’s incorrect.
  3. C
    Other sources of lead Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Even if the lead paint makes up a small proportion of the total lead ingested by kids in older apartment buildings, it still makes up some portion. This answer, thus, doesn’t explain why the total amount would go up with the lead paint removed.
  4. D
    Removing lead paint from Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    This answer both explains how the removal of lead paint could result in children ingesting lead and compares that to the amount they ingest when it’s still in the paint. If removing the paint kicks up lead dust that is then more easily ingested, it makes sense that removing it is going to increase the amount ingested.
  5. E
    Many other environmental hazards Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Similar to answers (A) and (B), other hazards and the risk they pose to the health of children doesn’t resolve the paradox surrounding the increased ingestion of lead by these children.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion