LR Question 13 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Jenkins: Research on the properties of snow at the…
QUESTION TYPE: Point at Issue
ANALYSIS: Both Jenkins and Lurano agree that there is some possibility that snow will melt after February. Jenkins is primarily concerned with not wasting research funding, even if there is a risk to scientists due to cold weather.
Lurano is primarily concerned with the safety of the researchers, even if there is a risk that research funding will be wasted in the warmer weather due to snow melt.
___________
- Lurano says: “The weather will likely still be cold.” He agrees that snow could melt.
- Jenkins agrees it is possible. He says “we risk sending researchers….unable to carry out research.” He implies it is possible they could succeed.
- They both agree funding could be wasted.
- They both agree. Jenkins wants cold weather research; Lurano wants to wait for warmer weather.
- CORRECT. Yes. Jenkins thinks funding is paramount. Lurano belies safety is more important.
Recap: The question begins with “Jenkins: Research on the properties of snow at the”. It is a Point at Issue question. Learn how to master LSAT Point at Issue questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
More Resources for Point at Issue Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Point at Issue questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers point at issue questions.
What is the evidence in the premise that indicates that Lurano agrees that funding would be wasted? If he doesn’t mention funding, how would we know his thoughts on it?
You’re right that he doesn’t explicitly mention funding. Nor does he even mention whether snow is most likely to be intact in January and February.
This is where the LSAT requires you to read between the lines. Lurano responds “I disagree” to Jenkins saying they should go in Jan/Feb because it’s important not to waste research money and thus go when snow is most likely to be intact. He gives a competing reason for going later: researchers face less risk to their health.
By offering safety as the reason to reject Jenkins’ conclusion, Lurano is implicitly saying that reducing risk to researchers is more important than the funding concern. He doesn’t need to deny that funding could be wasted in order to disagree about which consideration should take priority. That’s exactly what E gets at: they disagree about whether funding considerations outweigh the risk to researchers, not about whether funding would in fact be wasted.
Imagine a world where Lurano did NOT think funding would be wasted. If Jenkins says: let’s not waste funding, Lurano wouldn’t then start talking about researcher health. He would say “I disagree. Funding won’t be wasted.” By giving a competing concern about health, he’s saying sure, but this is more important.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.