Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT112 S3 Q15 Explanation

Environmentalists who seek stricter governmental

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsPrinciple-Conform

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Environmentalists who seek stricter governmental regulations controlling water pollution should be certain to have their facts straight. For if it turns out, for example, that water pollution is a lesser threat than they proclaimed, then there will be a to them even when dire threats exist.

What this question is testing

Principle-Conform

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
15.

Which one of the following best illustrates the principle illustrated by the

Answer choices

  1. Correct84% picked this

    Middle-level managers who ask their companies to hire additional employees should have strong evidence that doing so will benefit the company; otherwise, higher-level managers

    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.

  2. Different Advice Word Bait10% picked this

    Politicians who defend the rights of unpopular constituencies ought to see to it that they use cool, dispassionate rhetoric in their appeals. Even if

    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."

  3. Different Advice1% picked this

    People who are trying to convince others to take some sort of action should make every effort to present evidence that is emotionally compelling.

    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".

  4. Different Advice2% picked this

    Whoever wants to advance a political agenda ought to take the time to convince legislators that their own political careers are at stake in

    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."

  5. Different Advice3% picked this

    Activists who want to prevent excessive globalization of the economy should assign top priority to an appeal to the economic self-interest of those who

    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."

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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