Logical Reasoning

PT144 · S3 · Q3 Editorial: The legislature is considering

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

Editorial: The legislature is considering allowing oil drilling in the Cape Simmons Nature Preserve.

Conclusion (however: rebuttal)

That claim is easily disproven.

rephrase: There will be damage to the environment if we allow oil drilling in the Cape Simmons Nature Preserve.

Evidence (just look at X)

At nearby Alphin Bay, where oil drilling began five years ago, the land is marred by industrial sprawl, drilling platforms, and miles of roads and pipelines.

Evaluate

The author is arguing that if we do X (oil drilling) at Cape Simmons, we'll have environmental damage, just like we (supposedly) did at Alphin Bay.

There are two big problems with the argument: 1. Did the author establish that oil drilling led to any environmental damage at Alphin Bay? (Not really, unless industrial sprawl and drilling platforms and roads and pipelines are considered environmental damage. But they're only really ugly aspects of industrial infrastructure. They aren't themselves evidence of damage.)

2. Did the author make it seem like the situation in Alphin Bay and the one with Cape Simmons are fair to compare?

Goal

We'd either want to strengthen this argument by being better convinced that the oil drilling at Alphin led to actual environmental damage.

Or we could want an answer to make us feel better about thinking that the situation with Alphin Bay five years ago would be analogous to the proposed situation at Cape Simmons, using modern drilling methods.

3.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the editorial?

  1. The Cape Simmons Nature Preserve

    No Impact

    This answer might give us more reason to want to protect Cape Simmons from environmental damage, but it doesn't do anything to make us increasingly think that allowing oil drilling would cause environmental damage. This answer isn't saying anything bad about oil drilling. It isn't strengthening the similarities between the Alphin Bay oil drilling and the proposed oil drilling at Cape Simmons.

    1% picked this

  2. The companies drilling for oil

    Weakens, if anything

    This answer points out a distinction between the Alphin Bay situation and the Cape Simmons situation. That's the opposite of what we're trying to do.

    3% picked this

  3. The editorialist believes that oil

    No Impact

    This answer might give us more backstory into the motivations of why the Editorialist is saying what she's saying, but it doesn't do anything to make us increasingly think that allowing oil drilling would cause environmental damage. This answer isn't saying anything bad about oil drilling. It isn't strengthening the similarities between the Alphin Bay oil drilling and the proposed oil drilling at Cape Simmons. It's just telling us a fact about the speaker (p.s. we've never, or maybe almost never, seen this before or since in an answer choice. we don't care who these speakers are. we only care about the logical content of their ideas).

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    There have been no significant

    Why this is right

    This answer strengthens the similarities between the Alphin Bay oil drilling and the proposed oil drilling at Cape Simmons. It's probably easier to understand this answer as Strengthening by Ruling Out an Objection. A skeptic might have heard this author's argument and said, "Sure, the oil drilling at Alphin Bay five years ago led to some environmental damage. But the proposed drilling at Cape Simmons would be different. After all, at Cape Simmons they'd be using modern drilling methods. They used older methods at Alphin Bay." This answer shuts down that sort of objection by saying, "The drilling methods are the same now as they were five years ago. Thus, what happened with Alphin Bay is still relevantly similar to what we'd anticipate happening at Cape Simmons."

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

    92% picked this

  5. Oil drilling is only one

    No Impact

    This answer isn't saying anything bad about oil drilling. And it isn't strengthening the similarities between the Alphin Bay oil drilling and the proposed oil drilling at Cape Simmons. So it's not doing anything to help this author's case.

    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