Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S4 · Q12 Q responds to P’s position by

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 Argument

Complying with the new regulations is useless since, had they been in effect, they wouldn't have prevented last year's lab fire, nor do they address its underlying causes.

Q's Response

If the regulations can potentially prevent money from being wasted, then they're useful. And the new safety regulations will prevent some accidents, which would prevent money from being wasted.

Evaluate

Q is attempting to undermined P's conclusion but isn't disputing P's evidence. Nothing Q said is suggesting that the new safety regulations would have prevented last year's fire or would address its underlying causes.

Q seems to implicitly accept those ideas, but they bring up new considerations that argue against P's conclusion.

Q's evidence cites a principle "any regs that prevent wasted money are useful" and then shows how the new regulations satisfy the trigger of that principle.

Goal

Look for something like, .

12.

Q responds to P's position by

  1. Correct

    Extending the basis for assessing

    Why this is right

    "Extending the basis" is a synonym here for "presenting new considerations". The basis that P used for assessing the utility of the new regulations was a) Would it have prevented last year's fire b) Does it address the underlying causes Assessing "utility" is the same as assessing "usefulness". Q offers some new considerations for assessing usefulness: c) Would complying with it prevent wasted money

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

    73% picked this

  2. Citing additional evidence that undermines

    Q Doesn't Address P's Evidence

    This answer is saying that Q brings up new considerations (love it) that undermine P's claim that the new regs wouldn't have prevented injuries in last year's fire (don't love it). Did Q try to argue that the new regulations would have prevented some injuries in last year's lab fire? No, Q doesn't say anything that addresses P's evidence or the lab fire.

    3% picked this

  3. Giving examples to show that

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This answer accuses the argument of being this: "Sure, these regulations are useless, but that doesn't mean that all regulations are useless!" But Q is arguing that these regulations are not useless.

    7% picked this

  4. Showing that P’s argument depends

    Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match

    The fact that this answer says that Q addressed last year's fire in any way is immediately disqualifying. According to this answer, Q thinks that P was arguing, "If a regulation would have prevented last year's fire, it would be useful" and Q attacks that assumption. Neither part of that matches up. P wasn't arguing that at all, and Q doesn't address any putative assumptions P was making.

    4% picked this

  5. Pointing out a crucial distinction,

    Bad Evidence Match

    Nothing that Q says is addressing a crucial distinction between potential benefits and actual benefits. Both P and Q are discussing potential benefits: - Could the new regulations potentially have prevented the fire or the injuries? - Could it address the underlying causes of the fire? - Could it prevent other accidents which would waste money?

    13% 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