Logical Reasoning

PT15 · S3 · Q23 Asbestos, an almost indestructible mineral

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

Asbestos, an almost indestructible mineral once installed as building insulation, poses no health risk unless the asbestos is disturbed and asbestos fibers are released into the environment.

Conclusion (should not)

The government should not require removal of all asbestos insulation.

Evidence

Asbestos poses no health risk unless it is disturbed and fibers are released.

Removing asbestos from buildings disturbs it, thereby releasing asbestos fibers.

Evaluate

This argument has a Plan / Goal structure:

PLAN: Governments should not require removal of all asbestos insulation.

GOAL: Minimize health risks from asbestos.

The core reasoning is that removing asbestos itself causes disturbance, releasing hazardous asbestos fibers, thus posing a health risk.

To strengthen this argument, we need to show that not removing asbestos is better for health than removing it because removing it presents a greater or continued risk of exposure. To object to this argument, we might say,

Goal

Let's find an answer that increases the plausibility that requiring asbestos removal would increase health risks, or that reassures us that leaving it in buildings doesn't present some ongoing hazard that's even scarier.

23.

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

  1. Asbestos poses far less risk

    Irrelevant Comparison

    Comparing asbestos to other health risks like smoking or exercise does not directly impact the decision whether asbestos should be removed. It provides no new information about the consequences of removal.

    4% picked this

  2. Asbestos can pose a health

    Unclear Impact

    This might sound a bit like it strengthens by highlighting a risk associated with removing asbestos. However, this risk is only triggered by workers who aren't wearing protective gear. We have no reason to think they wouldn't be wearing protective gear, so it's not clear that this does anything.

    14% picked this

  3. Some kinds of asbestos, when

    Irrelevant Comparison

    We have no interest in comparing different types of asbestos, especially when we have no idea where the more dangerous or less dangerous kinds are located. We are interested in comparing removing asbestos (of any kind) vs. leaving it there. This answer doesn't relate to that conversation.

    12% picked this

  4. Asbestos is inevitably disturbed by

    Opposite Impact

    This would sound more like a weakening idea, because it's saying that if we leave the asbestos in the buildings, it will be inevitably disturbed later by renovations or demolition.

    19% picked this

  5. Correct

    Much of the time, removed

    Why this is right

    This strengthens the argument by adding another danger associated with removing asbestos: even if we safely get it to a landfill, we might accidentally dredge it up later and expose people to health risks. If disturbed after being buried, it can still re-enter the environment, meaning removal does not eliminate future health risks.

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

    51% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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