Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S4 · Q9 Because of increases in the price

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

Because of increases in the price of oil and because of government policies promoting energy conservation, the use of oil to heat homes fell by 40 percent from 1970 to the present, and many homeowners switched to natural gas for heating.

Conclusion

A significant switch back to oil in the near future is unlikely.

Evidence (because)

Many homeowners switched from oil to gas because of increases in the price of oil and government policies promoting energy conservation.

Switching to natural gas involved investing in equipment.

Evaluate

The author's argument is that now that people have invested in equipment to heat their homes with gas rather than oil, they're not likely to switch back to oil in the near future.

To weaken this prediction, we need some reason they would switch back. When we're trying to thwart a prediction from coming true, we usually need something to change that upends the current trajectory.

It could be that people hate the way that gas heats their home so much that they find it financially worthwhile to pay extra for oil, just so they have a more pleasant heating experience.

But it's more likely the answer will introduce some changing condition that now switches the incentives in favor of oil.

Maybe the price of gas goes up, or oil goes down. Maybe the cost of the gas equipment was pretty negligible to begin with, so the cost of switching back to oil would only involve a small "wasted" expense. Maybe there will be a new governmental campaign saying that natural gas is terrible.

Goal

Let's just look for something that could change in the near future that would incentivize people who have switched to natural gas to go back to oil.

The prediction that ends the passage would be most seriously called into question if it were true that in the last few years

The price of natural gas
Very Weak Impact
The first half of this is neutral (the cost of gas stays the same). The second half allows us to think that people who switched to natural gas in the last few years paid a much cheaper price for their natural gas equipment than did all the other people who switched since 1970. So, for these recent gas-switchers, the cost of switching to gas wasn't that high. Thus, it wouldn't be too painful to decide "screw it, I'm going back to oil" for them. But this answer gives them no incentive to switch back to oil. And the people who bought natural gas equipment in the last few years probably don't represent a huge chunk of the natural gas users. The conclusion allows for the fact that some people will switch back. It's specifically predicting there won't be a significant switch back.
6% picked this
The price of home heating
No Impact
The first half of this is neutral (the cost of oil stays the same). The second half allows us to think that people won't be switching to natural gas much in the near future (because the equipment has gotten so expensive). But they are irrelevant. If they're currently oil users, we don't care about them. This prediction is only about whether a significant number of current gas users will be incentivized to switch back to oil. They already have their gas equipment, so the price hike on gas equipment doesn't affect them at all.
18% picked this
The cost of equipment to
No Impact
The first half of this is mainly neutral. As we discussed with (A), people who bought natural gas equipment in the last few years might have bought it so cheap that the "wasted money" of switching back to oil wouldn't be a big disincentive to them. But they're only a small slice of the natural gas using public. And what is their incentive for switching back? Oil is apparently back to what it cost in 1970, which was when people started making the switch to gas. Apparently, the balance between oil prices and gas prices in 1970 was such that people were motivated to leave oil and buy natural gas equipment. So, 1970's prices don't clearly seem like a big motivation to switch back to oil.
5% picked this
Correct
The cost of equipment to
Why this is right
This helps us argue that a bunch of people might switch back to oil. 1. It's cheap to switch back, since the cost of oil equipment has fallen sharply. 2. It's financially beneficial to switch back, since right now it's cheaper to heat your home with oil than with natural gas
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
70% picked this
The use of oil to
No Impact
The first fact almost strengthens. It seems to support the author's notion that people are switching to natural gas and not switching back to oil. The second fact, as we discussed with (C) isn't any clear incentive to prefer oil over natural gas. Why? Because in 1970, the price of oil was at 1970's oil prices (obviously), and people were motivated to switch to natural gas back then.
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