LSAT 30, Logical Reasoning I, Q8, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken 

CONCLUSION: The drilling proponent concludes that the opponent’s proposal is ridiculous.

REASONING: He makes an analogy to farms. Each individual farm does not provide very much food compared to the needs of the nation as a whole. Yet collectively the farms are valuable. So too with oil production.

ANALYSIS: The proponent makes use of an analogy. However he ignores the environmental aspect of the opponent’s argument. A single farm doesn’t usually pose a major environmental threat. 

___________

1. CORRECT. New oil drilling offshore risks environmental disaster. A single new farm usually doesn’t threaten to destroy the environment. 
2. This is irrelevant to offshore oil drilling. Farming isn’t crucial, it was just used as an analogy. 
3. So? The main point of the analogy was that small quantities from individual farms (or oil rigs) can add up to a large total. 
4. This doesn’t help us say whether oil drilling is a good or bad idea. 
5. Farming was just an analogy. Farm products are irrelevant! The proponent could just as easily have talked about the housing market to make his point. 

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---