Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S1 · Q18 The use of space-based satellites

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

The use of space-based satellites to study environmental conditions on Earth is an important development in the conservation movement’s history.

Conclusion

It is no wonder that environmentalists fail to consider both that spacecraft may damage the ozone layer and that this damage could be serious enough to warrant discontinuing spaceflight.

Evidence

The use of this spacecraft is an important development in the conservation movement's history.

It allows us to observe problems long before we'd otherwise notice, allowing us to intervene before we reach crisis stage.

Evaluate

When we're shopping for a Principle that conforms to or justifies an argument/reasoning, we're basically looking for something where the trigger idea matches up with something we know from the Evidence and the outcome idea matches up with the language or gist of the Conclusion.

Our conclusion is, .

To loosen up our brains for meaning-matches, what's another way we could say the same thing? .

There are a couple ideas that could be used for the trigger.

If X is an important unsurprising you're development in your → overlooking X's movement's history potential fatal flaws

If X allows us to see unsurprising you're problems early enough → overlooking X's intervene before crisis potential fatal flaws

Goal

Look for an answer that sounds like 1/2 Evidence, 1/2 Conclusion.

It should be talking about whether or not something is important and helpful to you, and it should be talking about whether or not you're likely to fail to consider that something's potential downsides.

18.

The reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?

  1. Correct

    People tend to ignore possible

    Why this is right

    I doubt many of us would fall in love with this on our first pass, but we can match both halves. The environmentalists are ignoring (failing to consider) the possible objectionable consequences (the damage the spacecraft may do to the ozone layer) of actions that support their activities (sending this spacecraft into space to help environmentalists have an early-warning on a brewing environmental problem). If people tend to ignore the potential bad stuff about actions that support their activities, then it's no wonder that these environmentalists seem to be ignoring the potential damage this helpful spacecraft is doing.

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

    63% picked this

  2. A negative consequence of an

    Bad Conclusion Match

    There's no language in this answer that touches on the conclusion: - it's no wonder that environmentalists fail to consider the damage - it's unsurprising they have a blind spot to the downside - it's to be expected that someone wouldn't think about the negative This principle sounds more like it's reaching a conclusion that evaluates an activity and deems it a good thing, overall. But our conclusion was evaluating people, and concluding that these people are behaving in an unsurprising "Human nature" kind of way.

    14% picked this

  3. Technology usually has at least

    Bad Conclusion Match

    There's no language in this answer that touches on the conclusion: - it's no wonder that environmentalists fail to consider the damage - it's unsurprising they have a blind spot to the downside - it's to be expected that someone wouldn't think about the negative This principle sounds more like it's involved in concluding that the overall value of a piece of technology or the expected risk of a piece of technology. But our conclusion was evaluating people, and concluding that these people are behaving in an unsurprising "Human nature" kind of way.

    2% picked this

  4. Even well-intentioned attempts to solve

    Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match

    Was there a well-intentioned attempt to solve a problem? Yes, the environmentalists are using spacecraft to try to locate, and get an early jump on fixing, environmental problems. Is the argument saying that in doing so, these environmentalists have sometimes made these environmental problems worse? No. The spacecraft may be damaging the ozone layer, but the problems they were trying to solve didn't necessarily have anything to do with the ozone layer. Also, this argument does not say the spacecraft has damaged the ozone layer. It's trying to reach a conclusion that's saying, "It shouldn't surprise us that they have asked about whether it's damaging the ozone layer."

    12% picked this

  5. Attempts to employ technology often

    Bad Conclusion Match

    There's no language in this answer that touches on the conclusion: - it's no wonder that environmentalists fail to consider the damage - it's unsurprising they have a blind spot to the downside - it's to be expected that someone wouldn't think about the negative This principle sounds more like it's reaching a conclusion that talks about technology: "It's no wonder the new spacecraft ended up having some downsides to it". But our conclusion was about how people are behaving: "it's no wonder the environmentalists aren't thinking about the potential damage of this technology".

    8% 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