Logical Reasoning

PT11 · S4 · Q6 Large quantities of lead dust

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

Large quantities of lead dust can be released during renovations in houses with walls painted with lead‐based paint.

Conclusion

Homeowners' Journal should run an article providing info on how to reduce risk of lead poisoning when doing DIY renovation.

Evidence

Lead poisoning while doing renovations can happen. Even when warned that they should leave this to professionals, people will still try to do the renovations themselves for cheaper.

Evaluate

This sort of feels like why they teach safe sex in schools or why colleges give out free condoms. Ideally, the kids wouldn't be sexually active. But we know they'll do it despite our warnings. So we better educate them on how to do it safely.

Goal

Let's look for a principle like,

Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the passage’s recommendation about an article?

Potentially dangerous jobs should always
Bad Conclusion Match
This principle would be directed at homeowners, and it would help us conclude "they shouldn't try to do these renovations themselves; they should leave it to the professionals." We need a principle that's directed at a periodical, telling them to run an article to mitigate the risk of people doing their own renovations.
1% picked this
Correct
If people refuse to change
Why this is right
The trigger applies to the evidence, as we were told that people even when warned will refuse to pay a professional and will do the renovations themselves (even though doing so jeopardizes their health). The outcome would apply to a periodical such as Homeowners' Journal and instruct them that they should make available information that would minimize those risks, which is what the conclusion is asking for. This rule takes us from stuff we were told in the Evidence to the type of claim we're trying to establish in the Conclusion.
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
95% picked this
A journal for homeowners should
Bad Conclusion Match / Opposite
This rule, when contraposed, says "if a DIY project does entail substantial risks, then a journal for homeowners shouldn't provide its readers with information on it." We were told that doing renovations does entail substantial risk, and so this rule would tell the Journal that they shouldn't run an informative article.
3% picked this
No one should be encouraged
Bad Conclusion Match
This rule allows us to conclude that we shouldn't encourage someone to perform a potentially dangerous procedure. The conclusion we're trying to support is saying that the Journal should run an article with information on how to do the procedure. While that's not the same as encouraging them to do the procedure, it is still enabling / facilitating them. It's definitely not telling them not to do it.
1% picked this
People who are willing to
Bad Conclusion Match
This rule allows us to conclude that we should discourage people who are willing to do their own renovations. The conclusion we're trying to support is saying that the Journal should run an article with information on how to do the procedure. That doesn't sound like discouraging them. It sounds like facilitating them.
0% 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