Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S3 · Q11 Lobbyist: Those who claim that automobile

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

Lobbyist: Those who claim that automobile exhaust emissions are a risk to public health are mistaken.

Conclusion

Those who claim that auto exhaust emissions are a risk to public health are mistaken. rephrase: auto exhaust emissions are not a risk to public health.

Evidence

Over the past 100 years, as auto exhaust emissions increased, every relevant indicator of public health improved dramatically.

Evaluate

This conclusion is anti-causal. The author is trying to prove that X does not cause Y, and the evidence is saying that over a certain period of time, X was present and something that sounds like the opposite of Y was occurring.

It would be sort of like if we said,

One of the two typical objections we make to anti-causal arguments is, .

Yes, unemployment is still rising, but the stimulus money still did something because unemployment would be even higher without it.

Yes, COVID cases are still rising, but the vaccine is still helping because they’d be rising even higher without the vaccine.

Yes, profits and revenue are rising, but Joe’s rudeness is still hurting business because our profits/revenue would be even higher if he weren’t offending the customers.

Yes, public health measures dramatically improved over the past century, but they’d be even more positive if we weren’t ingesting poisonous auto emissions.

Goal

Look for an answer that has this form:

CONC - X is not causing Y. PREM - In the time period where X has been present, stuff has been happening that seems like the opposite of Y.

And the correct answer should be vulnerable to a similar objection, such as even though things like Y seem to be doing fine in the presence of X, they would be doing even better in the absence of X.

(even though health indicators seem to be doing fine in the present of auto emissions, they would be doing even better if we weren't breathing in car emissions)

11.

The flaw in the lobbyist's reasoning can most effectively be demonstrated by noting that, by parallel reasoning, we could conclude that

  1. inspecting commercial airplanes for safety

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion here isn’t anti-causal. It’s saying that “inspecting isn’t necessary”. That’s enough of a mismatch to bail.

    8% picked this

  2. smoking cigarettes is not bad

    Bad Evidence Match

    The conclusion is anti-causal, but the evidence needs to sound like, “These people smoked cigarettes over a certain time period, and their health measures improved during that time.” The premise in this answer is simply, “some people who smoke don’t get smoking illnesses”.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    using a cell phone while

    Why this is right

    This has the anti-causal conclusion, “Using a cell phone doesn’t cause more dangerous driving”. And it has a premise that says during the time period where cell phones have been present (since the invention of the cell phone), there seems to be [less dangerous driving], since number of traffic accidents have decreased. But just like the original argument, we can argue, “Sure, but the number of accidents would be even lower if people weren’t on their cell phones.”

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

    86% picked this

  4. skydiving is not dangerous because

    Weak Evidence Match

    This is concluding that skydiving does not cause a dangerous situation. Is its evidence citing a correlation between the emergence of skydiving and a decrease of danger? Not quite. It just says “in recent years”, there have been fewer injuries. Is this argument vulnerable to the objection of, “Sure, but there would be even fewer skydiving injuries if there were no skydiving”? No. That’s sort of a cheap, vacuous objection. e.g., “There would be fewer bear attacks if there were no bears.” In the original argument and in the correct answer, we can argue that other things are changing that are making the background situation better, whereas the thing from the conclusion is still keeping the situation from being better than it is. ORIGINAL: Public health indicators have gotten better because of advances in medicines, screening, and therapies. But they would be even higher than they are without us suffering the adverse effects of car exhaust. CORRECT: There are fewer traffic accidents nowadays because of better traffic signs, lower speed limits, better safety features on cars. But there would be even fewer accidents if people weren’t using their cell phones while driving. There’s no analogous way to do that with (D).

    3% picked this

  5. people with insurance do not

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion here isn’t anti-causal. It’s saying that “inspecting isn’t necessary”. That’s enough of a mismatch to bail.

    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