Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S2 · Q19 Analyst: Any new natural-gas-powered

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

Analyst: Any new natural-gas-powered electrical generation station needs to be located close to a natural-gas pipeline, a large body of water for cooling, and transmission lines.

Statements

conditional:

close to gas pipeline, large body water, new natural gas and transmission lines power station → and in a region where residents won't oppose construction

facts: We've got the transmission lines. But, we only have transmission lines near three bodies of water, and residents would oppose construction in all those locations.

Evaluate

When we're given a Conditional rule, we're often expected to make an inference based on facts that trigger the contrapositive.

If we're lacking any of those 4 required ingredients, then we can't construct any new natural-gas powered stations.

It sounds like we're lacking some of those ingredients, since the places that have 3 of the 4 are lacking the last thing, cooperative residents.

Goal

They seem to want us to say, "We're screwed"? "Can't build any new stations?"

19.

The analyst's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following statements about the analyst's country?

Future electrical needs will have
Too Strong: have to be met
This captures the "we're screwed" sentiment, but it goes too far. (It is no accident that it is very similar to what we were looking for, but wrong, and placed in the position of answer choice A. There are a lot of Inference questions with a very tempting trap answer A.) If we say "we're screwed; we can't build any new natural-gas powered stations", that doesn't allow us to infer that in the future we will have to meet our energy needs with non-gas alternatives. A) Do we already have existing natural gas stations? If so, then we could still meet some of our future energy needs with natural gas. We're just saying we're screwed when it comes to building new stations. B) Are we already needing more energy than those existing natural gas stations can provide? If not, then future energy needs could continue to be met with our existing natural gas stations. For multiple reasons, this harshly worded prediction does not need to be true.
14% picked this
If a new natural-gas-powered electrical
Out of Scope: move away
We only know that residents near three large bodies of water would oppose construction. We wouldn't even be able to say that many of THEM would move way. We just know they would oppose.
1% picked this
Correct
No site would be suitable
Why this is right
Unless = if not, so we can think about this as, if the existing system of pipelines is NOT expanded, then no site for a new station is suitable. This also resonates with our "We're screwed" prediction, but why is it bringing up "if we don't expand our existing system"? Well, it turns out we weren't as hopeless as we may have thought in a first read of the stimulus. We knew we needed four things: - transmission lines / pipeline / large body of water nearby - cooperative residents We thought we were screwed, because currently, the only place where we can get pipeline and large body of water to be near each other is in places where residents would oppose. We can't change how residents near these three large bodies of water would feel. We can't invent new large bodies of water, but there might be other large bodies of water that already exist. The language was tricky: our pipelines run in the vicinity of only three of our large bodies. That's not saying "our pipelines run in the vicinity of our only three large bodies of water." Only three ≠ conditional. It's like me whining, "Mom you only gave me three pancakes?" It's using "only" as an adverb that means a paltry, meager amount. It's possible that our country has many other large bodies of water. We already have an extensive system of transmission lines. If we expanded our pipelines so that a pipeline was near one of these other large bodies of water, then we might have cooperative residents (or no residents) nearby. So there is still a CHANCE that we could find a suitable site to build a new station. But, as this answer says, if we're stuck with the existing pipelines, then we're screwed.
Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
63% picked this
There currently is no natural-gas-powered
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: current stations Out of Scope: largest bodies We only got information about building new stations. We don't know anything about existing stations. And we only got information about three of our large bodies of water. We don't know anything about "the three largest bodies of water".
19% picked this
Many residents who would oppose
Unsupported
Unsupported: speculating opinion Only One Mentioned ≠ Only One We only know that residents in these three areas would oppose building a natural gas station. The fact that the passage only mentioned their opposition to natural gas stations doesn't tell us that natural gas stations are the only thing they oppose.
4% 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