Logical Reasoning

PT138 · S4 · Q12 The government has recently adopted a policy

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

The government has recently adopted a policy of publishing airline statistics, including statistics about each airline's number of near collisions and its fines for safety violations.

Conclusion

Having the government publish airline stats about near collisions and fines for safety violations will undermine the goal of making the public more informed about airline safety.

Evidence

Airlines will be much less likely to give complete reports if this info is going to be public.

Evaluate

The author is reasoning in this way: Publish → incomplete → public not safety info → reports → more informed

That first link is established in the premise. The second link is something the author is assuming.

Goal

If we're arguing the Anti-Conclusion, we need to think, .

12.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. Correct

    fails to consider that, even

    Why this is right

    We'll always like an answer that says, "fails to consider that EVEN IF premise is true, STILL POSSIBLE THAT conclusion is wrong". This takes that form. "Even though the reports are incomplete, they may help the cause of making the public better informed about airline safety." This is making the objection that "something is better than nothing". If the govt didn't publish safety stuff, then the public might have no information about airline safety, so even if this leads to incomplete reports, it could be an improvement on before.

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

    76% picked this

  2. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Too Strong: "all"

    The author didn't need to assume that the public has a right to all info about all matters of public safety. She's not even really assuming that the public has a right to this info. She's just making a descriptive argument that says, "Hey, govt. I know you're trying to boost public knowledge, but I see your action as having a repercussion that would undermine that goal." She isn't evaluating whether it's a worthy goal, a rightful goal, etc.

    2% picked this

  3. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Too Strong: "impossible"

    The author doesn't need to assume that info about airline safety is impossible to find without government disclosures. It wouldn't hurt her argument if there was some possible non-governmental way to obtain a shred of info about airline safety.

    10% picked this

  4. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Out of Scope: "should be responsible"

    There's nothing normative in this argument. The author is arguing that a step the govt is taking will undermine what it is hoping to achieve by taking that step. One can make that argument regardless of whether they endorse the government's goal, are opposed to it, whether they like the govt or hate it, whether they think the government should report accurate safety info or someone else.

    10% picked this

  5. fails to consider whether the

    Out of Scope: "revenues"

    This argument is only about whether or not publishing incomplete safety reports will or won't increase how informed the public is about airline safety. The airlines revenues are totally out of scope.

    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