Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S3 · Q15 Scientists hoping to understand 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

Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage to the fragile ozone layer in the Earth’s upper atmosphere used a spacecraft to conduct crucial experiments.

Conclusion (so)

The use of a spacecraft to conduct experiments aimed at understanding and eventually reversing damage to the fragile ozone layer is unjustifiable.

Evidence (since)

The spacecraft did as much harm to the ozone layer as a year's pollution by the average factory.

The pollution from the factory is unjustifiable.

Evaluate

This is an argument by Comparison, so to weaken it, we want to try to think of salient differences between the two things being compared.

The author is arguing,

We would have to make an excuse for why it could be wrong in one case but tolerable in another case. We'd probably say,

The argument is sort of like saying,

The surgeon would be like,

Goal

Look for an answer saying that the ozone damage caused by the spacecraft could be justifiable because it's aimed at helping the ozone layer overall, whereas the factory's pollution is not.

15.

The reasoning in the environmentalists' criticism is questionable because it

  1. Correct

    treats as similar two cases

    Why this is right

    The author treats the the damage done by the spacecraft and that done by the average factory as similar, but they are different in a critical respect: The damage done by the spacecraft is a means to an end that would ultimately reverse damage to the ozone layer. The damage done by an average factory has no such noble end. This is a good example of one of those correct answers on Flaw that really doesn't say much in the answer choice. If we don't already have this objection LSAC is testing in our heads, it will be hard for these answer choices to put that idea there, because they're written so vaguely. This answer is a generic objection that would apply to most arguments by Comparison.

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

    69% picked this

  2. justifies a generalization on the

    Bad Conclusion Match Not Sampling

    This answer describes the famous Sampling flaw, in which an author's argument relies on a sample that is too small, unrepresentative, or self-selecting. Is this conclusion a generalization? Nope. It's a specific claim that the single trip by the scientists' spacecraft was unjustifiable.

    6% picked this

  3. fails to distinguish the goal

    Out Of Scope: Goal

    This is a very tempting answer choice, since the environmentalists seems worried about preventing the harmful effects of pollution, whereas we're thinking, "C'mon, man, those scientists are trying to reverse the harmful effects of pollution". But when an answer choice is saying the author confuses X with Y, it's saying that the author went from talking about one thing in the premise to a different thing in the conclusion, and didn't acknowledge the switch. Did the environmentalists go from saying that the goal of the spacecraft was to reverse harmful effects to acting like the goal of the spacecraft was to prevent harmful effects? No, the environmentalists (whose argument we're judging) didn't mention the goal of this spacecraft at all. The paragraph mentions the goal as background information, but the environmentalists' reasoning is contained entirely in the final sentence. If fact, our primary objection to them is, "Aren't you failing to acknowledge the goal of the spacecraft's trip, which is what would make the damage it caused justifiable?"

    21% picked this

  4. attempts to compare two quantities

    Quantities Are Comparable

    Our objection here isn't that you can't compare the quantity of pollution from the factory to the quantity of the pollution from the spacecraft. You can definitely quantify emissions and ozone damage and consider them comparable. Our objection is that you shouldn't only compare these two situations based on quantity of pollution, because the purpose of the pollution also matters to our evaluation.

    3% picked this

  5. presupposes that experiments always do

    Too Strong: Always

    This author definitely did not need to assume that 100% of experiments do harm to their subjects.

    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