Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT125 S4 Q2 Explanation

Kris: Years ago

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

TopicsMethod

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

Kris: Years ago, the chemical industry claimed that technological progress cannot occur without pollution. Today, in the name of technological progress, the cellular phone industry manufactures and promotes a product that causes environmental pollution in the form of ringing phones and loud conversations in regulated, just as the chemical industry is now regulated.

Terry: That's absurd. Chemical pollution can cause physical harm, but the worst harm that cellular is annoyance.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
2.

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

Answer choices

  1. Out Of Scope1% picked this

    questioning the reliability of the source of crucial information in

    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.

  2. Too Strong7% picked this

    attacking the accuracy of the evidence about the chemical industry that

    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.

  3. Bad Premise Match / Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

    arguing that an alleged cause of a problem is actually an effect

    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. Correct87% picked this

    questioning the strength of the analogy on which Kris's argument

    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.

  5. Bad Premise Match / Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

    rejecting Kris's interpretation of the term

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

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