LSAT 105 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q9

LR Question 9 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: To allay public concern about chemicals …

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken

CONCLUSION: The public doesn’t need to be concerned about the chemicals leaking into the river.

REASONING: New chemicals are federally tested for safety before going on the market.

ANALYSIS: The rep is trying to reassure people by saying: the chemicals are tested for safety, so leaking shouldn’t worry us.

But notice that it says long-established dump. That matters. If the dump contains older chemicals from before the testing law existed, then the testing requirement doesn’t tell us those leaking chemicals are safe.

So the weak point is: Are the leaking chemicals actually covered by the safety-testing law?

___________

1. This talks about a downside of pharmaceutical testing: delays for useful drugs. It doesn’t show that the leaking chemicals are dangerous or untested.
2. Recent leakage doesn’t tell us whether the chemicals are safe. A dangerous chemical can start leaking recently, and a safe one can too.
3. CORRECT. This says the testing law is recent, and before it existed there were already 40,000 chemicals being made, many dangerous. Since the dump is long-established, the leaking chemicals could be old, untested, dangerous chemicals, so the representative’s reassurance doesn’t work.
4. Dilution would make the leak seem less dangerous, so this helps the representative more than it hurts them.
5. Murky water from construction runoff doesn’t tell us whether the chemical leak is safe. It’s a separate cause of murkiness, not a reason to worry about the chemicals.