Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S2 · Q18 Some critics of space exploration

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

Some critics of space exploration programs claim that they are too costly to be justified.

Facts

causal (undermine / direct consequence)

Budgetary pressures >> less safe to be cheaper/quicker (manufacturing flaws)

attributions

some critics: space programs too costly most experts: 1/70 chance of explosion per flight

Evaluate

When we see this Proposition / Generalization twist on Most Supported questions, the correct answer usually addresses a Causal Difference-Maker or some Pivot-Tension.

Here there is some of both. There is a concern about cost in the first sentence and a concern about safety in the second sentence. And apparently, those two things are in tension with each other, as the third sentence reveals (trying to cut costs meant we made things less safe).

Goal

Find the most provable claim (safer wording preferred). It'll probably relate to this causality / tension.

18.

The passage conforms most closely to which one of the following propositions?

  1. Correct

    Attempts to solve one problem

    Why this is right

    Ooh, super soft language. We can make this work. In attempting to solve the cost problem, we exacerbated the safety problem. The pressure to make stuff cheaper undermined safety, via manufacturing flaws.

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

    72% picked this

  2. Safety risks are sometimes ignored

    Unsupported

    The passage doesn't describe safety being ignored. They might be observed / tolerated, but that doesn't mean ignored. And the causal factor that got us there was budgetary pressure, not something relating to scientific progress.

    6% picked this

  3. Safety is often sacrificed in

    Half Scope

    This wouldn't be terrible if we didn't have (A). It's easier to prove from this one example than something CAN happen than that it OFTEN happens. And the causal factor that led to sacrificing safety was producing results "as quickly and cheaply as possible". This is only talking about the speed, not the cost.

    15% picked this

  4. Bureaucratic mistakes can lead to

    Unsupported

    The passage doesn't mention bureaucratic mistakes; it talks about budgetary pressure leading to manufacturing flaws. Maybe in retrospect they would consider their decision to be cheaper/quicker a mistake, but this was an intentional decision, not a mistake. We also don't really have ammunition for the idea of inefficiency. We know safety was undermined / there were flaws, so that does sound like a quality reduction, but it's harder to stretch that to also mean inefficiency.

    3% picked this

  5. Space exploration is too dangerous

    Too Strong

    This is a very extreme claim saying that we need to halt all space exploration. Some critics feel that way, and this story about manufacturing flaws resulting from trying to save money provides some support for that pessimistic worldview, but overall this passage would be very weak support for such a fatalistic conclusion that we need to stop all space exploration.

    3% 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