LR Question 5 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: A natural history museum contains several displays of…
QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported
FACTS: The skins have decayed from heat and humidity. New fluorescent lights produce less heat than the old tungsten lights, while producing just as much light.
ANALYSIS: It’s likely that with fluorescent lights, skins will still be damaged, but less damaged. Humidity is the same, but fortunately there will be less heat.
___________
- CORRECT. Probable. Switching to fluorescent lights should reduce heat, and heat was one of the causes of the skins’ deterioration.
- Who knows? Fluorescent lamps still produce some heat, so multiple fluorescent lamps could still damage the skins.
- We don’t know how many old and new displays there are.
- The stimulus doesn’t say whether humidity will improve. As far as we know it’s constant.
- We have no idea what humidity levels were in the past, or what they are now.
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.
Hi, so I’m a little confused about this question. It says that the animal’s skins have started to deteriorate BECAUSE of low humidity, so wouldn’t that mean that more heat is needed to preserve the skins instead of less heat? Realllyyy confused!
The question says heat is BAD. You’re making a false tradeoff between low humidity and heat, assuming they compensate for each other. But both are BAD for the skins.