Logical Reasoning

PT135 · S1 · Q23 Physician: There were approximately

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

Physician: There were approximately 83,400 trampoline­ related injuries last year.

Physician's 1st Claim

There were 83,000+ trampoline injuries last year.

Does Trampoline enthusiast claim or imply that there weren't 83,000+ trampoline injuries last year? No.

Physician's 2nd Claim

83000+ injuries suggests that trampolines are quite dangerous.

Does Trampoline enthusiast claim or imply that 83,000+ trampoline injuries doesn't mean that trampolines are dangerous? Hmmm. A little bit. Trampoline enthusiast stresses that the absolute number doesn't tell the story. They're actually getting safer over the past 10 years, because even though trampolines have gone up 260% injuries have only gone up 154%.

Physician's 3rd Claim

Trampolines should only be used under professional supervision.

Does Trampoline enthusiast claim or imply that trampolines don't need to be used under professional supervision, that it's okay sometimes to use them without professional supervision? Yes, basically. Trampoline enthusiast downplays the concern over the 83,000 injuries and reminds us that trampolines are inherently risking, with or without supervision.

Evaluation / Goal

Physician is saying trampolines are dangerous and should only be used under professional supervision.

Trampoline enthusiast is saying trampolines are not that dangerous and they can be used without professional supervision.

23.

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that the physician and the trampoline enthusiast disagree over whether

  1. trampolines cause injuries to a

    Both Presumably Agree

    Although the 2nd person brings up considerations that make trampolines sound less alarmingly dangerous, he would still probably agree that a significant number of people are injured. He doesn't push back against the 83,000 injury fact.

    9% picked this

  2. home trampolines are the main

    Too Strong: main source

    We wouldn't be able to infer from either person's statements that home trampolines are the main source of trampoline injuries.

    1% picked this

  3. the rate of trampoline-related injuries,

    No Comment from Person 1

    We know that Person 2 would agree with this claim, but Person 1 doesn't have any statements that conflict with this.

    3% picked this

  4. professional supervision of trampoline use

    Too Strong: tends to

    Person 1 would probably agree to this, since she is insisting on professional supervision. But we don't have a good conflicting idea from Person 2. He brought up the fact that injuries still occur, even if you have professional supervision, but that leaves room for him to agree that having supervision generally reduces the number of injuries.

    16% picked this

  5. Correct

    trampoline use is an activity

    Why this is right

    We know Person 1 agrees, because that's her last claim. Person 2's disagreement is supportable by the fact that he downplayed the relative danger of trampolines and reminded us that injuries will happen with or without supervision. He seems to be suggesting that we need not worry quite so much as Person 1 is worrying, and that we need not always have professional supervision.

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

    71% 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