Logical Reasoning

PT17 · S2 · Q6 Engineer: Some people argue that

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

Engineer: Some people argue that the world’s energy problems could be solved by mining the Moon for helium-3, which could be used for fuel in fusion reactors.

Conclusion

This is nonsense.

Rephrase: Mining the Moon for helium-3 won't solve our energy problems.

Evidence

Even if mining helium-3 from the Moon were possible, the technology to build fusion reactors that could use such fuel is at least 50 years away. The argument assumes that solving energy problems takes precedence over creating a sustainable infrastructure for fusion.

Evaluate

This paragraph follows a rebuttal pattern, where the engineer argues against a proposed solution to the energy problem—mining helium-3 from the Moon—by presenting a significant technological delay related to fusion reactors. The conclusion is introduced with a pivot word, "But," indicating that the author is rebutting the suggestion from "some people."

Goal

Find the best available meaning match for *Mining the Moon for helium-3 won't solve our energy problems.*

6.

The main point of the argument is that

  1. mining the Moon for helium-3

    Background

    It's implied that mining is not currently feasible, but that's not the conclusion. The author's conclusion is "it's crazy to think that mining for helium-3 would solve our energy problems". Ultimately, her premise isn't "after all, it's not feasible to mine for it" but rather "we won't have the technology to use helium-3 for a long time".

    16% picked this

  2. fusion reactors that are now

    Inference-Bait

    This sounds nothing like "mining for helium-3 won't solve our energy problems". This is trying to bait people into inferring, from the fact that we won't have reactors capable of using helium-3 for a while, that the reactors currently being planned aren't designed for helium-3. Even if that's a correct inference, it doesn't match our conclusion.

    0% picked this

  3. people who advocate mining the

    Unrelated to Goal

    This is an unstated idea, so shouldn't be tempting. It doesn't at all resemble what we're looking for, which is "it's nonsense to think that mining the moon for helium-3 would solve our energy problems".

    0% picked this

  4. Correct

    mining the Moon for helium-3

    Why this is right

    This choice is the best meaning match for "it's nonsense to think that mining the Moon for helium-3 would solve our energy problems".

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

    79% picked this

  5. if the world’s energy problems

    Premise / Last Claim Bait

    This is just the final claim (a typical trap answer on Main Conclusion), and the final claim is a Premise, as it is on 90% of Main Conclusion arguments.

    4% 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