Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S3 · Q3 Columnist: Although it is our civic duty to protect

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

Columnist: Although it is our civic duty to protect the population against hazards to public health, we should not reroute high-tension power lines away from heavily populated areas.

Conclusion (should = opinion)

We should not re-route high tension power lines away from heavily populated areas.

Evidence (this is because)

Our limited resources should be devoted to protecting the population only against well-substantiated threats to public health.

Evaluate

We're trying to prove, "We should not" do a certain action, so we need a rule, a proving-mechanism, that allows us to output: shouldn't do X.

Did the evidence give us such a thing, or is that what the correct answer needs to provide?

The evidence does give us a rule (signified by "only") that allows us to output "should not" language, once we contrapose it.

The words only / only if always signify the right side idea, so if we need to we can first symbolize the rule as, . But since we want the right side of the rule to match up with the conclusion, we would contrapose that to get this:

If not a well-substantiated our resources should threat to public health → not be devoted to it

So if we're trying to prove this conclusion that's saying, , then we need to establish the trigger.

Goal

We need to hear that .

If we wanted to think about this mathematically, the conclusion is trying to create this logic path.

CONCLUSION addressing should high-tension ----------------------> not do power lines

The evidence provides this subset of the logic path.

not well-subt ---> should threat to PH not do

So the correct answer needs to provide the missing subset.

addressing not well-subt high-tension ----> threat to PH power lines

The conclusion of the columnist's argument can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

Public health would be damaged
Unrelated to Goal
We know what we're looking for, having high tension power lines near heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat to public health Anything that isn't that is irrelevant to us. It won't solve our missing math. In particular, since "high-tension power lines near heavily populated areas" is a New Concept in the Conclusion, we know that any answer lacking that language is useless for completing our logic circuit.
3% picked this
Proponents of expensive safety measures
Unrelated to Goal
We know what we're looking for, having high tension power lines near heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat to public health Anything that isn't that is irrelevant to us. It won't solve our missing math. In particular, since "high-tension power lines near heavily populated areas" is a New Concept in the Conclusion, we know that any answer lacking that language is useless for completing our logic circuit.
2% picked this
Scientific evidence exists for causal
Unrelated to Goal
We don't have to bother thinking about wrong answers on Sufficient Assumption. We're supposed to know what we're looking for: having high tension power lines near heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat to public health Anything that isn't that is irrelevant to us. It won't solve our missing math. This answer again fails to mention the New Concept in the Conclusion (high-tension power lines near heavily populated areas).
2% picked this
Correct
No investigation of the effects
Why this is right
We were looking for this. having high tension power lines near heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat to public health This answer is saying all the investigations done so far of high-tension power lines have not established any health threat. If all the studies so far have established no health threat to people, then it's safe to say "there is no well-substantiated threat to public health". This style of correct answer is more common on modern tests. It doesn't allow us to over-mechanistically solve for a missing link. We need to be clear on the idea we need, but flexible with how we get there. This answer implies the idea we need, rather than stating it directly.
Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
91% picked this
Rerouting high-tension power lines away
Too Weak
We can't quickly dismiss this one because it does have a lot of the keywords we're looking for. But we needed to know that "high-tension power lines near heavily populated areas is not a well-substantiated threat to public health". This is saying, "if we move the power lines, it will be harder to study the effects of power lines on people". We might think, "Jeez, if we're still studying the effects of power lines on people, then I guess it isn't yet a well-substantiated threat to public health". But that's not a fair implication. Secondhand tobacco smoke is a well-substantiated threat to public health / covid is a well-substantiated threat to public health. But we still might continue to study the specific effects.
2% 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