QUESTION TYPE: Point At Issue
ARGUMENTS: The doctor says trampolines are dangerous because they cause many injuries. He thinks we should require professional supervision for trampolines.
The trampoliner points out that injuries have increased less quickly than trampoline sales (so the injury rate is falling). Every activity has risks, even with supervision.
ANALYSIS: It sounds like they disagree on whether the level of trampoline related injuries is acceptable, and whether trampolines require professional supervision.
The right answer has to be something that both people have an opinion on. Many wrong answers talk about things that one or both of the two people say nothing about.
- The trampoline enthusiast doesn’t deny that trampolines cause injuries.
- The physician doesn’t talk specifically about home trampolines.
- The physician doesn’t say anything about the injury rate.
- It sounds like the enthusiast agrees that supervision can reduce (but not eliminate) injuries. However, they don’t think it’s justified to require supervision.
- CORRECT. The trampoline enthusiast says no. All activities carry risks, even with supervision. But the doctor thinks we should supervise.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly