Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S2 · Q4 Food company engineer: I stand

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

Food company engineer: I stand by my decision to order the dumping of small amounts of chemicals into the local river even though there is some evidence that this material may pose health problems.

Conclusion

I stand by my decision to order the dumping of small amounts of chemicals into the local river, even though there's some evidence they may pose health problems.

Evidence

I fish in the river myself and will continue to do so. And I have no problem if other food manufacturers do what our company does.

Evaluate

The author is essentially saying, .

Why is it okay? 1. Golden Rule -- I won't object if other companies do the same thing 2. Put My Money Where My Mouth Is -- I'm not afraid of what these chemicals will do to the river, as evidenced by the fact that I love this river and use it and will continue to eat things that come out of it.

Goal

Let's look for something like,

Or something like,

The engineer's reasoning most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?

One is justified in performing
Bad Trigger Match
This rule would look like this: if other people are planning then it's okay to do something like X ? to do X The outcome matches the Conclusion well enough. But was there a premise saying that other people are planning to dump small amounts of chemicals into the local river? No, it didn't say anyone was actually planning to do so. The evidence was just saying "IF someone decided to do so, the author wouldn't object".
2% picked this
One should always choose to
Bad Trigger Match
This rule would look like this: if action X would benefit the then you greatest number of people ? should do X The outcome doesn't match the Conclusion that well. Our author's conclusion is that "I stand by my decision", meaning "it's defensible / it's okay". This seems to go one step farther by saying "we should do it". But the more glaring disconnect is the trigger. We definitely never heard that "dumping small amounts of chemicals into the local river" would benefit the greatest number of people.
0% picked this
Correct
One is justified in performing
Why this is right
This rule would look like this: if you're willing to submit then it's yourself to the consequences ? okay to do X of doing X or having someone else do X The outcome matches the Conclusion well enough. Was the author saying that she is willing to submit herself to the consequences of dumping small amounts of chemicals into the local river? Yes! She was saying that she fishes in the river and will continue to do so. If dumping chemicals in the river actually taints the river water or poisons the fish in there, then someone fishing in the river will potentially be exposed to that harm. And she says she will continue to fish in the river. Was she saying she's willing to submit herself to the consequences of someone else dump small amounts of chemicals into the local river? Yes, she said she'd have no problem if other food manufacturers do what this company is doing (dumping small amounts of chemicals).
Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
98% picked this
One should never perform an
Bad Outcome Match
This rule would look like this: if you haven't fully analyzed then it's not all the ways an act ? okay to do X could impact others The author's conclusion is that is was okay to dump chemicals. This principle would only help someone conclude that they should not have performed an action yet.
0% picked this
One has the right to
Bad Trigger Match
This rule would look like this: if action X isn't going then you have to harm anyone else ? to right to do X The outcome matches the Conclusion well enough. But was there a premise saying that dumping small amounts of chemicals into the local river will not harm anyone else? No, it actually says that there's some evidence that this material may pose health problems.
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