Logical Reasoning

PT156 · S4 · Q1 Montoya: Many industrial chemical processes

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

Montoya: Many industrial chemical processes that currently use organic solvents could use ionic liquids instead.

Montoya's Conclusion (So / should)

Chemical companies should start using ionic liquids in some processes instead of organic solvents.

Montoya's Evidence

Ionic liquids are less hazardous to workers, generate less pollution, and produce faster reactions with fewer unwanted byproducts.

Peterson's Objection

Ionic liquids cost many times more than organic solvents, making them impractical to use at the present time.

Evaluate

When we're asked to logically counter, we want an answer that responds to the 2nd person's objection in a way that defends the 1st person's conclusion.

So we're thinking,

The key to defending Montoya's suggestion is to highlight potential ongoing savings or efficiencies that justify the higher cost of ionic liquids, much like investing in a hybrid car to save on fuel costs over time.

Goal

Our goal is to argue that even though ionic liquids cost more initially, they can still be practical or cost-effective in the long run due to some form of compensatory savings or benefits that offset their expensive upfront costs.

1.

Of the following, which one, if true, is the strongest counter Montoya could make to Peterson's argument?

  1. The cost of organic solvents

    No Impact

    This just tells us that there are lots of expenses chemical companies consider. It doesn't give us any way to say that it would be worth it to use the more expensive ionic liquids.

    2% picked this

  2. New methods for removing by-products

    Opposite

    One of the benefits we were hoping to get from ionic liquids was fewer by-products, but this answer is actually helping the 2nd person argue, "Relax -- we can use the cheaper organic solvents, since we've got new ways to get rid of the by-products."

    0% picked this

  3. The chemical industry has historically

    Doesn't Address Objection

    Ionic liquids do speed up reactions, so this answer would kinda make it sound like ionic liquids are the type of thing the chemical industry has historically been quick to adopt. Although that somewhat fits our goal of arguing for ionic liquids, it doesn't respond at all to the objection that they are way more expensive than organic solvents.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    Ionic liquids can be reused

    Why this is right

    This gives us a way to defend the higher upfront cost of ionic liquids -- they last much longer than organic solvents. If you can use ionic liquids 5 times and organic solvents only once, then ionic liquids could be 5 times as expensive and still provide the same value.

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

    93% picked this

  5. For the sake of public

    No Impact (slightly more expensive)

    Ionic liquids are more environmentally friendly since they lead to less air pollution, so this answer somewhat sounds like it argues in favor of ionic liquids. But they are MANY times more expensive than organic solvents, not just slightly more expensive, so this doesn't really apply to ionic liquids.

    3% 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