Logical Reasoning

PT12 · S4 · Q4 The region's water authority is

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

The region’s water authority is responding to the current drought by restricting residential water use.

Conclusion (therefore)

Imposing restrictions now is clearly premature.

Evidence

Reservoir levels are now at the same height they were during the drought ten years ago when no restrictions were put into effect and none proved necessary.

Evaluate

GIVEN THAT we didn't need water restrictions the last time the reservoir was at this level,

HOW CAN WE ARGUE THAT we do need to impose restrictions now?

This argument is making a Past = Present assumption, saying . The way we fight that sort of logic is to say that something is different about this time; something's changed.

Goal

Let's find an answer that demonstrates a major difference between the present and ten years ago, providing a reason for the current water restrictions despite the similar reservoir levels.

4.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously calls the conclusion above into question?

  1. There are now more water

    Opposite Impact

    This speaks to something that's changed, but if there are more water reservoirs now, then it's harder for us to argue that we need to impose water restrictions.

    7% picked this

  2. Correct

    The population of the region

    Why this is right

    This statement highlights a dramatic change in water demand due to a larger population. Even though reservoir levels are the same, a greater population would likely consume more water, so we can say that our situation now is more dire than it was ten years ago.

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

    85% picked this

  3. The region currently has more

    Opposite Impact

    This speaks to something that's changed, but if there are more sources for water than there were ten years ago, then it's harder for us to argue that we need to impose water restrictions.

    4% picked this

  4. The water-consuming home appliances and

    Opposite Impact

    Another distinction that means we're better off when it comes to water use now than we were ten years ago. This suggests that water usage in households could be more efficient now, diminishing the need for restrictions rather than supporting it.

    3% picked this

  5. The price of water for

    Opposite (if anything)

    If the price of water is high in this region, then people will be motivated to consume less water, which makes it harder for us to say we need to impose water restrictions.

    1% 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