Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT124 S2 Q4 Explanation

Industrialist: Environmentalists contend thatemissions

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

Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our factory pose a health risk to those living downwind. The only testimony presented in support of this contention comes from residents of the communities surrounding the factory. But only a trained scientist can determine whether or not these emissions scientists. Hence our factory’s emissions present no health risk.

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
4.

The reasoning in the industrialist’s argument is flawed because

Answer choices

  1. Bad Premise Match15% picked this

    impugns the motives of the residents rather than assessing the reasons

    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.

  2. Out of Scope: other sources5% picked this

    does not consider the safety of emissions from other sources in

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

  3. Correct77% picked this

    presents no testimony from scientists that the emissions

    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.

  4. Out of Scope0% picked this

    fails to discuss the benefits of the factory to the

    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!)

  5. Same Use Of "Risk"3% picked this

    equivocates between two different notions of the term

    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.

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