Logical Reasoning

PT139 · S4 · Q25 Pauline: Some environmentalists claim

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

Pauline: Some environmentalists claim that for the salmon to be saved, the hydroelectric dams on the river must be breached.

Pauline's first claim

Some environmentalists claim that saving salmon requires us to breach the hydroelectric dams on the river. Does Roger agree that some environmentalists claim this?

He doesn't have any comment.

Pauline's second claim

Given the region's growing population and booming industry, breaching the dams would cause electrical costs to skyrocket. Does Roger agree with any of this?

He seems to agree with Pauline's general background concern that a growing population and booming industry create a big demand for electricity, one we will struggle to meet.

She thinks that breaching the dams (denying ourselves the hydroelectric energy they were providing) would reduce the supply of electricity, causing the price of electricity to skyrocket (because there is high demand).

Roger thinks that even with the supply of hydroelectric power that we currently enjoy, we will need to find new supply of energy. So he also thinks there is high demand for electricity.

Goal

Let's look for something like, .

25.

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Pauline and Roger agree that

production from other energy sources
Too Strong: cannot be increased
Roger seems to explicitly calling for other energy sources. He's saying we'll need to increase energy from new sources. If you start getting energy from solar panels, then your "production from energy sources other than hydroelectric" has been increased. Pauline seems to be assuming that energy from other sources will not go up so much that it will stabilize electricity costs, but she's not assuming that energy cannot go up from other sources.
6% picked this
Correct
there will be no significant
Why this is right
They are both agreeing that demand is swelling in the area. Pauline is worried that if we lose hydroelectric, the growing population/industry needs will lead to skyrocketing electricity prices. Roger is convinced that our existing supply will not suffice in the near future. Even if we keep all that hydroelectric power, we'll still need more energy (to meet growing demand, we presume). Since they're both assuming that there will be significant demand for energy in the near future, we can say they're both assuming "there will not be a significant decrease in demand.
Skill tested: Agree/Disagree · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
75% picked this
if the dams remain in
No Support Person 2
We could stretch Pauline's statements to support this belief, but we have no idea what Roger thinks about .... A) consequences of dams not at optimal capacity and B) electrical costs
10% picked this
some environmentalists who advocate saving
Out of Scope: beliefs of environmentalists
Neither person is weighing in on whether environmentalists believe that the goal overrides the costs of their plan. The environmentalists may be suggesting that we breach the dam (because the goal overrides the concerns about costs). Or they may just be experts when it comes to the salmon, so they're just factually stating (with sad resignation) that to save the salmon we'd need to breach the dam, even though they don't think we should actually breach the dam. Roger certainly has zero commentary on the environmentalists, so we have zero support for his beliefs about this answer choice.
3% picked this
finding additional energy sources will
Supported by Neither
Roger never discusses energy costs, so this answer is a non-starter. But Pauline might disagree with this; she thinks a drop in energy supply (by losing the hydroelectric energy supplied by the dam) would cause costs to go up. But she might believe that were we to find additional energy sources, the costs wouldn't go up.
7% 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