Logical Reasoning

PT124 · S2 · Q4 Industrialist: Environmentalists contend thatemissions

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

Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our factory pose a health risk to those living downwind.

Conclusion

The factory's emissions present no health risk.

Evidence

The only people so far saying that it does present a health risk are local citizens, who aren't trained to judge whether these emissions are dangerous.

Evaluation

This commits the famous flaw of Unproven vs. Proven False, in which the lack of sufficient proof for claim X leads an LSAT author to erroneously conclude that claim X is false.

The testimony of the citizens is definitely not proof that the emissions do pose a health risk, since they're not trained to judge that. But the author is only allowed to conclude something with hedged wording, such as , or

Goal

Look for an answer calling out the Unproven vs. Proven False flaw or otherwise saying,

4.

The reasoning in the industrialist's argument is flawed because the argument

  1. impugns the motives of the

    Bad Premise Match

    The author never talks about the possible motivations of the residents; he only talks about their lack of scientific training to show that they don't have the expertise to judge the risk of the emissions.

    15% picked this

  2. does not consider the safety

    Out of Scope: other sources

    This conclusion is only about whether "our factory" poses a risk, so potential risks from other sources are beyond the scope of this conversation.

    5% picked this

  3. Correct

    presents no testimony from scientists

    Why this is right

    The author has only shot down unqualified voices saying the emissions are risky. He hasn't presented any qualified voices saying the emissions are safe.

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

    77% picked this

  4. fails to discuss the benefits

    Out of Scope

    The conclusion is only asking us to judge whether or not the emissions are risky. There isn't a broader conversation happening about whether or not the factory is "worth it" (sure it's got emissions, but it also does so much GOOD for the community!)

    0% picked this

  5. equivocates between two different notions

    Same Use Of "Risk"

    Both uses of health risk are comparable. They both refer to something that could be unhealthy or damaging to people. This answer describes the famous flaw of Equivocation, which is almost always going to be an incorrect answer.

    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