Logical Reasoning

PT147 · S4 · Q20 Edgar: Some of the pumps

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

Edgar: Some of the pumps supplying water to our region have been ordered shut down in order to protect a species of small fish.

Edgar's Claims

1. Some of the pumps supplying water to our region were shut down to protect a small fish species.

2. It's absurd to inconvenience thousands of people for the sake of something so inconsequential.

Rafaela's Responses

1. No comment, but she seems to implicitly agree with this, since she's telling Edgar what she knows about this situation of shutting down the pumps to protect this fish.

2. She doesn't directly disagree with this, because she isn't saying,

Evaluate

So since the 2nd speaker isn't disagreeing with any of the explicit claims, we need to think about some of the implicit assumptions the 1st speaker was making.

Edgar is assuming that "shutting down some of the pumps" is going to "inconvenience thousands of people".

And he's assuming that "this species of small fish" is "something inconsequential".

Rafaela seems to be disagreeing with the idea of "inconsequential", because her wording of "a very serious threat" is the best contrast we can find between her and Edgar.

However, is Rafaela saying that this fish is a very consequential species, and thus worth taking drastic steps to save?

Not really. It sounds like she's saying,

So it seems like Rafaela might be disagreeing with Edgar's understanding that the pumps are being shut down in order to protect the small fish. She seems to think that the pumps are being shut down in order to investigate the potential pollutant that is threatening this fish and could one day threaten us.

Goal

Look for something like .

20.

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Edgar and Rafaela disagree over whether

  1. shutting down the pumps will

    Unsupported Disagree Position

    Edgar would Agree with this, but we have no support for the Disagree position. From Rafaela's statements, we can't derive that she thinks, "Shutting down the pumps won't inconvenience lots of people".

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    the survival of the fish

    Why this is right

    This is the only answer speaking to why we're shutting down the pumps, which was what our prediction was all about. It comes off sounding very extreme, but Edgar is definitely under the impression that the pumps are being shut down for the sake of this fish (and only for that). That's why he's so exasperated that we're going to such inconvenient lengths just for the sake of this one, small fish species. Meanwhile, Rafaela would support the Disagree position. She thinks that there's at least one reason (other than protecting the small fish) that they are shutting down the pumps: they're worried that whatever in the water is harming this fish could later harm us, by entering our water supply.

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

    72% picked this

  3. species of small fish are

    Unsupported Disagree Position

    Edgar would somewhat Agree with this, because he's assuming that this small fish species is inconsequential, but this answer sounds more like a universal, "ALL species of small fish are inconsequential". It's not clear that Edgar believes that. More importantly, though, we have no support for the Disagree position. From Rafaela's statements, we can't derive that she thinks, "species of small fish are consequential". She's never arguing that this small fish we're talking about is consequential. She's saying whatever it is that's harming this small fish could be consequential.

    24% picked this

  4. the order to shut down

    Out of Scope: legal

    Neither one of these people speak to the legality of the shut down, so we wouldn't be able to support the Agree or Disagree position.

    0% picked this

  5. shutting down the pumps will

    Too Strong: sufficient

    Neither one of these people speak to the sufficiency of the shut down, so we wouldn't be able to support the Agree or Disagree position. This answer is saying that "if we shut down the pumps, it's 100% certain the fish species will be protected". We can't derive that from either set of statements.

    0% 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