Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S3 · Q4 There are only two possible reasons

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

There are only two possible reasons that it would be wrong to engage in an activity that causes pollution: because pollution harms ecosystems, which are valuable in themselves; or, ecosystems aside, because pollution harms human populations.

Conclusion (not wrong = opinion)

It would not be wrong to perform mining operations on Mars.

Evidence

There are only two possible reasons it would be wrong: 1. because pollution harms ecosystems 2. because pollution harms human populations

Mining operations on Mars would cause pollution, but the small human presence needed to run the mining operation would be completely protected from harm.

Evaluate

This argument has a form where it lays out the only two ways that X wouldn't be true, rules out those two ways, and then concludes X.

For example:

So in this argument, the author needs to rule out that pollution from mining would harm ecosystems and rule out that pollution from mining would harm human populations.

Did she do both?

No. She only established that pollution from mining wouldn't harm human populations.

Goal

So we need our answer to rule out the other one of the "two possible reasons it would be wrong". We need to know that, mining operations on Mars would not harm ecosystems.

4.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Mining creates less pollution than

    Unrelated to Goal

    We need to be convinced that mining operations on Mars would not harm ecosystems. This doesn't mention ecosystems at all.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    There are no ecosystems on

    Why this is right

    We need to be convinced that mining operations on Mars would not harm ecosystems. This answer successfully does so. If there are no ecosystems on Mars, then there's no way we could harm an ecosystem by mining there.

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

    93% picked this

  3. The economic benefits of mining

    Unrelated to Goal

    We need to be convinced that mining operations on Mars would not harm ecosystems. This doesn't mention ecosystems at all.

    2% picked this

  4. It is technologically feasible to

    Unrelated to Goal

    We need to be convinced that mining operations on Mars would not harm ecosystems. This doesn't mention ecosystems at all.

    2% picked this

  5. The more complex an ecosystem

    Unrelated to Goal

    We need to be convinced that mining operations on Mars would not harm ecosystems. This answer provides a relationship between the value and complexity of an ecosystem, but it doesn't do anything to let us know whether pollution from mining operations on Mars would harm any Martian ecosystems.

    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