LSAT 151 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Lobbyist: Those who claim that automobile exhaust emissions …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Exhaust emissions aren’t a risk to public health.

REASONING: Exhaust emissions increased, yet public health improved during the same period.

ANALYSIS: What if we got better medicine, sanitation, or nutrition? Public health could’ve still improved even if exhaust emissions harmed health. The fact that things got better overall does not show a particular risk factor is harmless.

So the flaw is in treating overall improvement in a general category as proof that one factor can’t be harmful. The answer choice should make the same mistake.

___________

1. This assumes that safety measures are no longer needed because there’s less plane crashes. The flaw is ignoring that those safety measures may be exactly why the number of crashes has gone down. It’s a bad argument, but not the same flaw as the stimulus.
2. Because harm doesn’t occur in every case, there’s no risk. Again, a bad argument but not the flaw in the stimulus.
3. CORRECT. A potentially dangerous factor increased (cell phone), but overall outcome (accidents) improved. So the factor isn’t dangerous. Using cell phones could still be dangerous since other factors may instead be responsible for the improved traffic safety.
4. This makes an absolute conclusion based on a relative decline in injuries. It’s a different flaw than the stimulus.
5. There’s not really a flaw here. It’s a stupid argument, but it’s just about what incentive you have to do something.