Logical Reasoning

PT132 · S2 · Q5 Area resident: Childhood lead poisoning

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

Area resident: Childhood lead poisoning has declined steadily since the 1970s, when leaded gasoline was phased out and lead paint was banned.

Conclusion

If we get rid of lead paint in these homes, then childhood lead poisoning in the area will be eradicated.

Evidence

Lead poisoning has steadily declined since the 1970s, but 25% of this area's homes still contain lead paint that poses a health hazard.

Evaluate

The author is assuming that, .

She must be thinking that lead paint in homes is the only way to get lead poisoning.

If we were trying to think of a way to fight her conclusion, we need to a way argue that .

We could argue that there are other possible sources of lead poisoning ... maybe there's lead paint in schools? Maybe there's lead in the water?

Goal

The conclusion is way too strong. Why would getting rid of lead paint in homes totally eradicate lead poisoning from the area?

Look for an objection pointing out other possible sources of lead poisoning or naming the author's assumption that "lead paint in homes" is only possible source of lead poisoning in the area.

5.

The area resident's argument is flawed in that it

  1. relies on statistical claims that

    Too Strong: unlikely to be reliable

    What grounds do we have for thinking that this statistic about remaining homes with lead paint is "likely to be unreliable"? LSAC would only want us to question evidence if it were inherently sketchy or being presented in a way that made it vulnerable to an objection. They haven't given us any reason to impugn these stats.

    0% picked this

  2. relies on an assumption that

    Wrong Flaw: not Circular

    When an answer says that "the evidence restates the conclusion" or "assumes the truth of the conclusion", it's referring to Circular reasoning. This conclusion isn't repeating the evidence. The evidence is a statistic about 25% of homes. The conclusion is a prediction about what would happen if we eliminate lead paint. tantamount = essentially the same as (I never formerly resigned from 7/11, but when I stopped showing up to work that was tantamount to tendering my resignation)

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    fails to consider that there

    Why this is right

    Whenever answer choices on Flaw start with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility they are trying to present some potential Objection. We can ask ourselves, "Would it hurt this author's argument, if we said that there are other significant sources of lead in the area's environment?" Definitely! That's a good way to argue the anti-conclusion. The author is assuming that lead paint in homes is the only significant source of lead in the area, because she reasons that "if we get rid of lead paint in homes, we will have eradicated lead poisoning in the area".

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

    86% picked this

  4. takes for granted that lead

    Out of Scope: can be eliminated

    No author is ever assuming the possibility or likelihood of their IF conditions. When an author makes a hypothetical conclusion, we can't strengthen or weaken the argument by talking about the IF-part. For example, suppose I said, "If Obama ran against Biden in the 2024 election, Obama would win" You can't affect that conclusion one way or the other by talking about whether or not Obama is allowed to run for President again, or whether he'd ever consider doing so. You can only discuss that conclusion by putting yourself in the hypothetical world of the "If-clause": okay, let me pretend that Obama is running against Biden in 2024 and try to think of how I might argue that Obama would not win. Similarly, this author is just saying "IF we lived in a hypothetical world with no lead paint in homes". He's not saying it's possible to get there, that it's cheap or easy to get there, that we probably will/won't get there. He's only saying, "IF we were teleported to that world, there would be no risk of lead poisoning in the area".

    1% picked this

  5. takes for granted that children

    Too Strong: all

    The author does not need to assume that every single one of those homes (the 25% that still have lead paint) has a child living there. Sure, she's assuming that some of those houses have children living there. But it doesn't affect her argument in the slightest if not all of those lead paint homes have children. If there are 1000 homes in the area with lead paint, she needs all 1000 to have kids in them? Would her argument really suffer if it was not all, or 999 out of 1000? Of course not.

    12% 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