LR Question 5 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Area resident: Childhood lead poisoning has declined…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: If we eliminate household lead, we'll get rid of childhood lead poisoning.
REASONING: Household lead is one cause of childhood lead poisoning.
ANALYSIS: This argument gives us one cause of lead poisoning. It then incorrectly assumes that household lead is the only cause of lead poisoning.
But maybe there's lead in the air, lead in the ground, lead in pipes etc.
___________
- We have no reason to doubt the statistics. This is only a flaw if we have a reason.
Example of flaw: This survey of four households indicates that 25% of them have lead. - This answer is circular reasoning. That wasn't in the argument.
Example of flaw: Getting rid of household lead will end lead poisoning because getting rid of household lead will end lead poisoning. - CORRECT. The argument didn't rule out other causes of lead poisoning.
- The argument didn't say we should eliminate lead in houses, or that it's economical to do so. The argument is just talking about what would happen if we eliminate lead.
Example of flaw: If we spent $1 trillion per child we'll eliminate lead poisoning. So we can eliminate lead poisoning. - The argument didn't do this. Something can only be a flaw if it happens!
Example of flaw: 200 homes have lead. So 200 homes are poisoning children.
Recap: The question begins with “Area resident: Childhood lead poisoning”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. To practice more Flawed Reasoning questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
Question about practice test 62, section 2, question 5:
I am having a really hard time seeing why E is false. In order for the argument to be correct, don’t children have to live in the 25% of area homes with lead paint? In other words, if the kids did not live in these homes, then eliminating the lead paint might not eradicate lead poisoning. Thanks!
The problem with (E) is that it says the resident’s argument assumes that children reside in all the homes containing lead paint. The argument doesn’t make that very strong claim.
In fact, if we closely read the stimulus, the argument doesn’t even outright say that children reside in any of those homes; it just draws some form of connection between homes containing lead paint that poses significant health hazards and childhood lead poisoning in the area.