Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S2 · Q4 The legislature is considering a proposed bill

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 legislature is considering a proposed bill that would prohibit fishing in Eagle Bay.

Conclusion (should)

The bill should be enacted (i.e. fishing should be prohibited in Eagle Bay)

Intermediate Conclusion (thus)

Continuing to permit fishing in Eagle Bay could have grave effects on public health.

Evidence

The bay has one of the highest water pollution levels in the nation, and a recent study found that 80% of the bay's fish contained excessive toxins.

Evaluate

Our job on method is just to characterize what type of evidence was used or describe the process by which the author reached her conclusion.

None of the evidence here sticks out as a frequently-tested pattern (like analogy, implications of logic, etc.).

The author is arguing in favor of a proposal to ban fishing, because the bay is super polluted and a recent study found tons of the fish have toxins, so if people are allowed to fish there it could have bad effects on human health.

Goal

Not sure what to look for. The conclusion is prescriptive. The evidence is mix of statistics, a recent study, and a speculative worry.

Since the spirit of Method is just , I wouldn't try to predict the wording.

Let's just find something that matches.

4.

The argument proceeds by presenting evidence that

  1. the toxic contamination of fish

    Too Strong: grave economic effect

    This was never said. The author has an intermediate conclusion as evidence that worries whether toxic contamination could have grave effects on public health.

    1% picked this

  2. the moral principle that an

    Out of Scope: moral principle

    This question wants us to pick an answer that matches at least one piece of evidence that was offered to us. The author never discussed any moral principle. We shouldn't be trying to make any assumptions here about things the author might think. This is just asking us, "which of these answers correctly describes some of the explicit evidence"?

    1% picked this

  3. the opponents of the ban

    Out of Scope: opponents failed

    This question wants us to pick an answer that matches at least one piece of evidence that was offered to us. The author never discusses her opponents' failure to weigh positive vs. negative. We shouldn't be trying to make any assumptions here about things the author might think. This is just asking us, "which of these answers correctly describes some of the explicit evidence"?

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    failure to enact the ban

    Why this is right

    This matches the meaning of the final sentence, which was an Intermediate Conclusion (thus, part of the Evidence). Continuing to = failure to permit fishing enact the ban grave effects on = unacceptable risks public health for public welfare

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

    91% picked this

  5. the ban would reduce the

    Out of Scope: reduce toxins

    All four wrong answers, including this one, just straight-up said something that was never said. The correct answer restates something that was said. Would it be fair to say this author was at least assuming this answer choice, that banning fishing would lower the toxins? No. Why would banning fishing lower toxins? Were the fishermen adding toxins to the Bay by fishing? The author is just worried about fishing somewhere that's full of fish that have absorbed a lot of toxins (humans shouldn't eat those fish).

    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