LSAT 21 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q5

LR Question 5 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Irrigation runoff from neighboring farms may well have…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The phosphorus can’t be hurting the swamp’s wildlife.

REASONING: There is more phosphorus in certain kinds of bottled water.

ANALYSIS: Would you drink swamp water? No? Then perhaps it has different characteristics than bottled water. Phosphorus might be fine in bottled water but bad in swamp water.

___________

1. There are no exaggerations. As far as we know, all facts are accurate.
2. There’s no contradiction. It could well be that bottled water has more phosphorus than swamp water.
3. CORRECT. We don’t know how relevant the phosphorus content of bottled water is. Maybe phosphorus is added to the water because humans need it. But phosphorus could be bad in swamp water.
4. Huh? The argument only concedes that phosphorus levels have increased. It hasn’t said that there is a problem with the increased level of phosphorus.
5. We don’t usually need the source of data on LSAT questions. We take it as a given that it’s accurate. Sourcing would take too long.

Recap: The question begins with “Irrigation runoff from neighboring farms may well have”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.