Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT119 S4 Q10 Explanation

Charlene: Environmental cleanup increasinglyrelies

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

TopicsFlaw

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

Charlene: Environmental cleanup increasingly relies on microorganisms to metabolize pollutants. This has its limitations, though, since microbes become less active drops below normal.

Olaf: I don’t think that’s right. Researchers studying oil spills in the Arctic and subtropical regions measured the carbon dioxide output of organisms that digest petroleum pollutants and found that oil at nearly the same rate.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that 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
10.

Olaf’s reply suggests that he misinterprets Charlene’s use of

Answer choices

  1. Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

    This doesn't have anything to do with whether we're talking about "temperature is low" vs. "temperature is lower than normal".

  2. Correct61% picked this

    Why this is right

    By "normal", Charlene meant "what a normal temperature for this region would be" (relative). Olaf seems to think that Charlene means "normal" like "an average temperature, globally". We certainly think of the equator as hot and the poles as cold, and so stuff that's more temperate would probably be thought of as "normal" by Olaf. But Charlene was talking about "whatever is a normal temperature for that reason".

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

  3. Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

    This doesn't have anything to do with whether we're talking about "temperature is low" vs. "temperature is lower than normal".

  4. Unrelated to Goal7% picked this

    This doesn't have anything to do with whether we're talking about "temperature is low" vs. "temperature is lower than normal". Olaf is thinking of limitations in the same way, insisting that there shouldn't be limitations since, in his distorted understanding, the activity rate of microbes is the same whether it's a hot climate or a cold climate.

  5. Unrelated to Goal27% picked this

    This doesn't have anything to do with whether we're talking about "temperature is low" vs. "temperature is lower than normal". Olaf is thinking about "active" just as Charlene is -- how quickly a microorganism would be metabolizing pollutants.

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