Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT125 S4 Q10 Explanation

Albert: The government has proposed

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

TopicsWeaken

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

Albert: The government has proposed new automobile emissions regulations designed to decrease the amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) released into the atmosphere by automobile exhaust. I don't see the need for such regulations; although a causal link has never been proven.

Erin: Scientists also blame PAHs for 10,000 premature deaths in this country each year from lung and heart disease. So the thousands of lives.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

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.

Which one of the following, if true, is the logically strongest counter that Albert can make

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope - Opinion1% picked this

    Most automobile manufacturers are strongly opposed to additional automobile

    How automobile manufacturers feel about the emissions regulations is not relevant to Erin’s argument.

  2. Out of Scope - Other Group6% picked this

    It is not known whether PAHs are a causal factor in any diseases other than heart and

    Diseases other than heart and lung disease and cancer are not relevant to the argument.

  3. Out of Scope - Conditional7% picked this

    Even if no new automobile emissions regulations are enacted, the amount of PAHs released into the atmosphere will

    The trigger of this relationship (automobile usage declines) does not apply.

  4. Correct69% picked this

    Most of the PAHs released into the atmosphere are the result of wear and tear

    Why this is right

    This provides an alternative source of PAHs and would make the regulation less effective than Erin asserts.

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

  5. Out of Scope - Other Group17% picked this

    PAHs are one of several components of automobile exhaust that scientists suspect

    Other causes of cancer emitted by automobile exhaust are not relevant to the argument, since scientists blame PAHs for 10,000 premature deaths in this country each year from lung and heart disease (not cancer) and those lives would still be saved.

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