LSAT 124 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q4

LR Question 4 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The emissions are safe.

REASONING: The residents haven’t proven the emissions are unsafe.

ANALYSIS: This is a classic flaw. The industrialist may have proven his opponents lacked sufficient evidence. But that doesn’t mean they are wrong. That is something he would have to prove himself, and he didn’t.

___________

1. This describes an ad hominem attack. But the industrialist didn’t attack their motives (e.g., “They’re only making these claims to win a cash settlement!”)
2. He doesn’t need to. He’s correct that citizens have presented no evidence of any damage, from his emissions or elsewhere.
3. CORRECT. Yes. He makes the same mistake he accuses his opponents of committing: not presenting valid scientific evidence.
4. There may be benefits, but the neighbors are discussing a very specific point: they claim damage from emissions. This is common in legal argument.
5. Health risk has the same meaning both times: a threat to health.

Recap: The question begins with “Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.