Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT17 S2 Q25 Explanation

S: It would be premature to act

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsMethod

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

S: It would be premature to act to halt the threatened “global warming trend,” since that alleged trend might not be real. After all, scientists disagree about it, some predicting over twice as much predictions cannot be based on firm evidence.

W: Most scientists consider discussions of accepted ideas boring, and prefer to argue about what is not known. According to the International Science Council, there is a consensus among reputable investigators that average will be from 1.5° to 4.5°C.

What this question is testing

Method

Opposing Point (S)

S looks at the spread in predictions — some scientists say twice as much warming as others — and concludes the science cannot be solid. If experts disagree this much, S says, why act?

W's Counter

W says: hold on. The Science Council says reputable scientists agree warming will be between 1.5° and 4.5°C. That is a range, not a fight. Think of it like five doctors looking at the same patient: one says you have a mild flu, another says a severe flu, but all five say flu. The "disagreement" is over severity, not whether you are sick.

Evaluate

So W is doing something specific: taking the same data S pointed to and showing it actually proves the opposite of what S claimed. The numbers do not show chaos — they show consensus on the existence and direction of warming, with disagreement only about how much.

Goal

Find the answer that describes W putting the disagreement in perspective by pointing out what the scientists actually agree on.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
25.

W’s rejoinder proceeds

Answer choices

  1. Bad Description8% picked this

    denying the existence of the disagreements cited

    W never denies that scientists disagree. W concedes that scientists prefer arguing about what is not known, and the cited range (1.5° to 4.5°C) explicitly acknowledges different predictions. W's move is to recontextualize the disagreement, not deny it.

  2. Bad Description7% picked this

    accepting S’s conclusion while disputing the reasons offered

    S concluded it would be premature to act on global warming. W cites consensus among reputable investigators that significant warming will occur over the next century, which directly opposes S's conclusion. W is rejecting S's conclusion, not accepting it.

  3. Bad Description21% picked this

    relying on authorities whose views conflict with the views of the authorities

    S did not cite any specific authorities — S referred to "scientists" generally and pointed to the spread in their predictions. W cites the International Science Council's consensus, but there are no competing authorities on S's side for that consensus to conflict with. The move is not "your experts versus my experts."

  4. Correct60% picked this

    putting disagreements cited by S in perspective by

    Why this is right

    This nails W's move. S cited the spread in predictions (some predicting twice as much warming as others) as evidence the science is unsound. W puts that disagreement in perspective by emphasizing the similarity that S overlooked: every reputable investigator is predicting warming, and within a defined range (1.5° to 4.5°C). The disagreement is real but narrow — about magnitude, not about whether warming will occur. By foregrounding what the scientists agree on, W shrinks the significance of what S highlighted.

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

  5. Bad Description3% picked this

    reasoning in a circle by accepting evidence only if it agrees with

    Circular reasoning would mean W assumes the conclusion as a premise, or accepts evidence only because it confirms a foregone conclusion. W cites the consensus of reputable investigators — an external authority — and that authority predates W's argument here. W is not selecting evidence to fit a desired conclusion; W is appealing to a stated scientific consensus.

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