LSAT 151 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q4

LR Question 4 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Food company engineer: I stand by my decision to order the dumping …

QUESTION TYPE: Principle

CONCLUSION: It’s okay for me to dump chemicals into the local river.

REASONING: I’m willing to fish in the same river myself, and I have no problem if other companies also dump chemicals.

ANALYSIS: Okay, Mr. Engineer. You’ll continue to fish despite the health problems. What if I’m not willing to?

It’s a crazy argument. But alas, this is not a Flawed Reasoning question.

The argument is:

• I fish in this river and I’m gonna keep fishing in this river no matter the pollution.
• I have no issue with others polluting the river.
• So it’s okay for me to pollute the river.

He’s basically saying he’s justified to pollute because he’s willing to endure the consequences of himself and others polluting.

Now, principles will usually be broader than that so you should substitute “pollute” with something like “action”.

___________

1. There’s nothing to say that others are planning to do it. The engineer isn’t saying “others will do it, so it’s okay.” He’s saying he’s fine if they do.
2. Nothing about maximizing benefits or helping the greatest number here. If anything, dumping chemicals probably isn’t maximizing benefits.
3. CORRECT. See above. The engineer is okay doing it because he’s willing to accept the consequences himself and from others.
4. He clearly hasn’t fully analyzed all impacts – he even admits there may be health risks.
5. This says “no harm”, but the stimulus explicitly says there may be health problems. So this doesn’t match.