Logical Reasoning

PT124 · S3 · Q2 Since the 1970s, environmentalists have

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

Since the 1970s, environmentalists have largely succeeded in convincing legislators to enact extensive environmental regulations.

Evidence

Since the 1970s, environmentalists have largely succeeded in convincing legislators to enact extensive environmental regulations.

Yet, as environmentalists themselves not only admit but insist, the condition of the environment is worsening, not improving.

Conclusion

Clearly, more environmental regulations are not the solution to the environment’s problems.

Evaluate

The argument points out that the environment has worsened during the time environmental regulations have existed. But that doesn’t mean that environmental regulations won’t fix the problem. It’s possible that while they were helpful, they were insufficient. The argument involves a relative comparison that could have been worse in the absence of the environmental regulations.

2.

The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument

  1. attacks the environmentalists themselves instead

    Wrong Flaw

    The argument does not attack environmentalists.

    1% picked this

  2. presumes, without providing warrant, that

    Too Strong

    The argument concludes that more environmental regulations are not the solution, but that’s different than saying only an absence of environmental regulations could prevent environmental degradation.

    5% picked this

  3. Correct

    fails to consider the possibility

    Why this is right

    This points to a possibility that would under-mine the argument.

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

    93% picked this

  4. fails to justify its presumption

    Unsupported

    The argument does not assume that reducing excessive regulations is important.

    1% picked this

  5. fails to consider the views

    Too Weak

    The argument does not need to consider the views of the environmentalist’s opponents in order to evaluate the environmentalist’s argument.

    0% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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