Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S1 · Q22 Damming the Merv River would

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

Damming the Merv River would provide irrigation for the dry land in its upstream areas; unfortunately, a dam would reduce agricultural productivity in the fertile land downstream by reducing the availability and quality of the water there.

Conclusion (so)

Building a dam would yield no overall gain in agricultural productivity in the region as a whole.

Evidence

The dam would provide irrigation for the dry land upstream, but would reduce crops in the land downstream by reducing the amount and quality of water available there.

The productivity loss downstream would be greater than the productivity gain upstream.

Evaluate

This argument basically said,

if we do this thing, build the dam something good happens more water upstream for crops but also something bad happens less water downstream for crops and bad outweighs good loss downstream > gain upstream

so, doing this thing provides no net gain overall. building the dam doesn't increase crops overall

Goal

Let's for an argument saying that doing a thing would have good and bad repercussions, but since bad outweighs good, there's no net gain.

22.

The reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following?

Disease-causing bacteria in eggs can
Bad Conclusion Match Bad Evidence Match
The conclusion sounds like a recommendation, whereas the original argument's was just a descriptive prediction. It's not talking about a Net Gain of something overall. That said, a certain action does have good and bad repercussions: overcooking eggs kills bad bacteria (good) but makes the eggs less appetizing (bad), but good outweighs bad (health > taste) whereas in the original bad > good. And the good and bad in the original were related to each other (more water / less water), whereas this good and bad are very different (less bacteria / less tasty).
3% picked this
Increasing the price of transatlantic
Bad Evidence Match
The action being discussed (increasing the cost of phone calls) would have a bad repercussion (discourage people from making them), but there's no good repercussion mentioned.
4% picked this
Correct
A new highway will allow
Why this is right
A certain action does have good and bad repercussions: making new highway allows quicker commute to city (good) but also will cause increased delays in city (bad) and bad outweighs good (delays will more than offset time saved) and the conclusion says there wwon't be a net gain but overcooking eggs kills bad bacteria (good) but makes the eggs less appetizing (bad), but good outweighs bad (health > taste) whereas in the original bad > good. And the good and bad in the original were related to each other (more water / less water), whereas this good and bad are very different (less bacteria / less tasty).
Skill tested: Parallel · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
88% picked this
Doctors can prescribe antibiotics for
Bad Evidence Match
The action being discussed (prescribing antibiotics) has a bad repercussion (expensive) but there's no good repercussion mentioned.
1% picked this
A certain chemical will kill
Weaker Evidence Match Bad Conclusion Match
The conclusion is not a claim saying "there won't be a Net Gain". It's saying "there a would only be a Net Gain for things like a tomato-only garden." The action being discussed (using the chemical) would have a good repercussion (kill garden pests) and a bad repercussion (kills other plants). Those aren't good and bad along the same dimension (like more water upstream / less water downstream in the original). We do hear that the bad outweighs the good (the chemical does more damage to plants than pests do to tomatoes), but there's no way to arrive at a similar Net Gain conclusion unless you said something like, "So using the chemical would not reduce amount of damage being done in the garden as a whole".
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