Logical Reasoning

PT21 · S3 · Q18 Prolonged exposure to nonionizing

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

Prolonged exposure to nonionizing radiation—electromagnetic radiation at or below the frequency of visible light—increases a person’s chances of developing soft-tissue cancer.

Statements

Prolonged exposure to nonionizing radiation increases your chances of soft-tissue cancer.

Electric power lines and certain electrical appliances (such as electric blankets / video-display terminals) are sources of nonionizing radiation.

Evaluate

The overlapping idea was "nonionizing radiation". - we know X, Y, and Z have it - we know prolonged exposure to it increases risk of cancer

So we should be able to infer that - prolonged exposure to X, Y, or Z would increase our risk of cancer

Goal

We know that prolonged exposure to power lines, electric blankets, or video-display terminals can increase our chance of soft-tissue cancer.

Since this is Most Supported (not Must Be True), it's possible that they will even bust out normative language like should, and say .

18.

Which one of the following conclusions is best supported by the statements above?

  1. People with short-term exposure to

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: not at risk Opposite Logic We were informed that long term exposure to NR, higher risk of ST cancer This is making the overly extreme and opposite-logic move of saying, not long term exposure to NR, no risk of ST cancer There might be many things that increase our risk of soft-tissue cancer besides nonionizing radiation. So even if people are avoiding this risk factor, that doesn't mean they have zero risk. A nonsmoker doesn't have zero risk of lung cancer (maybe they live near a factory that billows our noxious smoke / maybe there are genetic forms of lung cancer).

    5% picked this

  2. Soft-tissue cancers are more common

    Out of Scope: other cancers

    We have no information about how rare or common soft-tissue cancer is vs. how rare or common other cancers are.

    1% picked this

  3. Soft-tissue cancers are frequently cured

    Out of Scope: frequently cured cancer

    We have zero information about anyone ever being cured of cancer, let alone this frequently happening in a spontaneous way.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    Certain electrical devices can pose

    Why this is right

    This is just reinforcing our Inference: prolonged exposure to electric power lines, electric blankets, or video-display terminals increases our chance of developing soft-tissue cancer. Electrical blankets and video-display terminals are "certain electrical devices". Having an increased chance of developing cancer is "a health risk". To support this answer choice, we just need to know of at least one electrical device that comes with a health risk, and we know of at least two.

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

    87% picked this

  5. Devices producing electromagnetic radiation at

    Opposite Logic One-Claim Support

    If we're told in an Inference paragraph that, tall men love their mothers can we infer then that small men don't love their mothers Of course not. It's probably the case that almost all men, regardless of height, love their mothers. This kind of trap answer occurs frequently in Reading Comp, Necessary Assumption, and Inference. If we read "Black lives matter", then the test will try to bait us into picking an answer that accuses that sentence of saying "non-black lives don't matter". We should also feel wary any time we're considering an answer on Must Be True / Most Supported that is supported by only one claim. This answer choice would be derived (incorrectly) from just the first sentence. But 99% of correct answers on MBT / MS are being derived by combining 2 or more claims together.

    5% 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