Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S4 · Q14 Columnist: Wildlife activists have

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

Columnist: Wildlife activists have proposed that the practice of stringing cable TV lines from the same poles that carry electric power lines should be banned because cable TV lines, while electrically neutral themselves, make it easier for animals to climb near electric power lines, risking electrocution.

Conclusion

The activists' argument for banning cable TV lines on power poles fails.

(The fact that cable lines make it easier for animals to climb near electric power lines and possibly get electrocuted does not justify banning the process of stringing cable lines from power lines)

Evidence (Since)

Some animals are electrocuted by power lines even in places where all the cable TV lines run underground.

Evaluate

If we're fighting this argument we're saying,

The author goes,

We'd say,

In short, we should react to the irrelevance of the author's rebuttal. If you're saying, , you can't respond,

Trying to solve one source of a problem (animals getting electrocuted / kids eating pills they should eat) doesn't mean you're solving all sources of a problem. The fact that the problem will still exist to some degree doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce the occurrence of the problem by taking action in one of the places where it occurs.

And even if the only two options for cable lines are strung up on power lines vs. laid underground, the author would have to convince us that putting them underground is a bigger safety hazard than having them on power lines. Otherwise we can argue that even though some animals will still get electrocuted if we move all the cable lines underground, fewer animals will get electrocuted.

Goal

Look for an answer calling out the irrelevance of the author's evidence, or pointing out that we never said banning cable lines on electric power poles would eradicate 100% of cases of electrocution.

14.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the columnist's reasoning?

  1. It takes a sufficient condition

    Necessary vs. Sufficient

    Was there any premise that cited some condition that guarantees an argument would be inadequate? No. I don't even know what that would mean. It would have to sound like, "After all, if xyz is true, then that would show that this argument fails". Then the author would have to reason, "Since this argument did fail, that must mean that xyz is true." Nothing like that is happening here. We're never attracted to a Nec vs. Suff answer unless we see a conditional logic premise, and the only premise in this argument is "some animals are electrocuted even when we only have underground power lines".

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    It rejects an argument for

    Why this is right

    Since the answer is structured does X merely on the grounds that Y we should ask ourselves whether Y matches the evidence and X matches where the author took the evidence. Did the evidence say that a proposal wouldn't completely eliminate the problem it's intended to address? Sure -- the proposal is intended to address the problem of electrocuting animals. The premise is saying that even if we got rid of cable lines from electric power poles (as proposed), the problem would still exist (because animals could still get shocked by underground lines). Does the conclusion "reject an argument for a proposal"? Yes! It says "this argument for [the proposal] banning the practice of hanging cable lines from power poles fails".

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

    91% picked this

  3. It fails to consider the

    Bad Objection

    Since this starts with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we ask ourselves whether it weakens to say "The proposal might have other additional advantageous effects (besides saving animals from electrocution)." That would hurt the argument if the author had said, "We should ban cable lines from being strung on electric power poles". But the author's conclusion is carefully calibrated to say this particular argument fails. She concedes that there might be some other reason that WOULD be an adequate reason to ban this practice. She's only saying that the animal-electrocution argument isn't an adequate reason.

    4% picked this

  4. It rejects an argument by

    Ad Hominem

    Famous Flaw Bait: Ad Hominem Bad Evidence Match The author does reject an argument in her conclusion. Is her evidence criticizing the wildlife activists? No, her premise just says "some animals get electrocuted even when all cable lines are underground".

    1% picked this

  5. It rejects a proposal to

    Bad Description

    The author's conclusion does reject a proposal to address a problem, but her evidence doesn't say "other proposals would also be effective". Her evidence says, "some animals are electrocuted even when cable lines are all underground."

    1% 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