Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S4 · Q11 A point at issue between P and

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

P: Complying with the new safety regulations is useless.

P's Conclusion

Complying with the new safety regulations is useless.

P's Evidence

Even if the regulations had been in effect before last year's fire, they wouldn't have prevented it because they don't address its underlying causes.

Q's Implicit Conclusion

Complying is useful.

Q's Evidence

Any regulations that can prevent waste are useful. The new regulations would prevent some accidents, and accidents always waste money.

Evaluate

We start on Disagree by assessing whether P2 disagrees with any of P1's explicit claims, and in this case Q is definitely pushing back against P's first claim.

Goal

Let's look for an about whether or not complying with the new safety regulations is useful.

11.

A point at issue between P and Q is whether

  1. Last year’s fire resulted in

    Half Scope

    Nobody Disagrees Out of Scope (damage to lab) We can't derive this answer from either paragraph, because neither person discusses whether last year's lab fire resulted in costly damage. But if anything, given that there was a fire in a lab, they would agree that it resulted in costly damage. Neither person would be arguing it didn't involve any costly damage.

    1% picked this

  2. Accidents at the laboratory inevitably

    Bad Match

    Neither speaker claims accidents inevitably result in personal injuries. P only talks about last year's fire-and-injuries case specifically. P doesn't make any general claim about lab accidents. Q allows for "even if no one is injured", so it's fair to say that Q disagrees with this claim.

    0% picked this

  3. The new safety regulations address

    Half Scope

    We know that P explicitly disagrees with this, but we can't derive this answer from Q's paragraph. Q doesn't talk about last year's lab fire or its underlying causes.

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    It is useful to comply

    Why this is right

    Q is implicitly arguing it would be useful, since the new regulations would prevent some accidents and thus prevent some money from being wasted. "Not wasting money" is inherently useful. P explicitly disagrees, saying, "Complying with the new safety regulations is useless."

    Skill tested: Agree/Disagree · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    95% picked this

  5. The new safety regulations are

    Half Scope

    Nobody Agrees / Out of Scope (likely obeyed) Neither speaker addresses how likely the regulations are to be obeyed. P argues compliance is useless (a claim about whether obeying would help, not whether anyone will obey). Q argues compliance would prevent waste (a claim about effects of obedience, not its likelihood).

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free