Logical Reasoning

PT112 · S3 · Q15 Environmentalists who seek stricter governmental

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

Environmentalists who seek stricter governmental regulations controlling water pollution should be certain to have their facts straight.

Anticipate

When we're trying to pull out a principle for a parallel argument, we don't think in terms of a formal, algebraic representation of the argument.

Think more holistically, like a slogan or piece of advice.

This argument seems to feel like the old Boy Who Cried Wolf story, in which a boy cries wolf even though there isn't a wolf two different times and the concerned townsfolk fooled by his ruse learn to distrust him. Then, when there really is a wolf, they don't come running to his aide, because he's lost credibility.

Similarly, this argument is saying that environmentalists better be sure there's really a wolf there (with water pollution). If not, people won't listen to them some time in the future when there really is a wolf (dire threat) there.

15.

Which one of the following best illustrates the principle illustrated by the argument above?

  1. Correct

    Middle-level managers who ask their

    Why this is right

    This follows the same script, although drastically reduces the life or death stakes, from wolves and ecological disasters to unneeded expenditures on human resources. This argument offers similar advice to middle-managers: - You better have your facts straight (you better have strong evidence that your request will do what you promise) - If not, people won't listen to you even when you're actually telling the truth (higher ups will refuse to follow your suggestions even when your request would do what you promise)

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

    84% picked this

  2. Politicians who defend the rights

    Different Advice Word Bait

    Different Advice Word Bait: "have their facts straight" This argument isn't saying "you better be telling the truth now, or else later when you are telling the truth they won't listen to you". It's saying, "you should use an unemotional tone, or else people will have a negative reaction even if you're telling the truth."

    10% picked this

  3. People who are trying to

    Different Advice

    This argument isn't saying "you better be telling the truth now, or else later when you are telling the truth they won't listen to you". It's saying, "you better make your sales pitch emotionally compelling, or else people won't be persuaded, even if you're telling the truth".

    1% picked this

  4. Whoever wants to advance a

    Different Advice

    This argument isn't saying "you better be telling the truth now, or else later when you are telling the truth they won't listen to you". It's saying, "you better convince your audience that it's in their interest to help you, or else they won't listen to you."

    2% picked this

  5. Activists who want to prevent

    Different Advice

    This argument isn't saying "you better be telling the truth now, or else later when you are telling the truth they won't listen to you". It's saying, "you better make your #1 priority reaching the audience that would be most adversely affected by X, or else the problems of X are inevitable."

    4% 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