Logical Reasoning

PT125 · S4 · Q2 Kris: Years ago

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

Kris: Years ago, the chemical industry claimed that technological progress cannot occur without pollution.

Kris

The chemical industry said pollution was a necessary evil of progress. Today, the cell phone industry produces a form of environmental pollution in the name of progress. Just as the chemical industry had to be regulated, so too much the cell phone industry.

Terry

Whoa, those are two very different forms of pollution: physically harmful vs. just kind of annoying.

Evaluation

Since Kris’s argument is based on a comparison/analogy, we know that LSAT is interested in having us evaluate whether these two cases are fair to compare or meaningfully different. Terry points out a meaningful difference between the two cases: the type of pollution with the chemical industry is far scarier than that with the cell phone industry.

Goal

Something like

2.

Terry responds to Kris's argument by doing which one of the following?

  1. questioning the reliability of the

    Out Of Scope

    Out Of Scope: “Reliability Of Source Of Crucial Information” Almost every Describe Response question has this built-in trap answer – the 2nd person attacked the 1st person’s evidence: denied its accuracy or relevance. We know that on LSAT we almost never attack evidence, so these are very unlikely answers. Terry didn’t say anything about Kris’s evidence.

    1% picked this

  2. attacking the accuracy of the

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: “Attacking The Accuracy Of The Evidence” Bad Premise Match Again, just like choice A, this is saying the 2nd person denied the truth of the 1st person’s evidence. I’m pretty sure that has never been correct. Terry said nothing to call into question the accuracy of Kris’s evidence. Terry just wants to distinguish between two different types of pollution.

    7% picked this

  3. arguing that an alleged cause

    Bad Premise Match / Bad Conclusion Match

    No part of Terry’s comment sounds like an accusation of Reverse Causality. This answer would accuse Terry of saying, “the Cell phone industry doesn’t cause pollution. Pollution causes the cell phone industry!”

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    questioning the strength of the

    Why this is right

    Since Terry is pointing out a meaningful difference between the harmful pollution of the chemical industry and the merely annoying pollution of the cell phone industry, Terry is pushing back against the legitimacy of the analogy Kris is making.

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

    87% picked this

  5. rejecting Kris's interpretation of the

    Bad Premise Match / Bad Conclusion Match

    Nothing Terry says is about “technological progress”. Terry rejects Kris’s equivocation of two different types of “pollution”.

    2% 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