• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

LSAT Hacks

The Explanations That Should Have Come With The LSAT

  • Start Here
    • About
  • LSAT Explanations
  • LSATHacks Pro
  • Course
  • Mastery seminars
  • Tutoring
  • Books
  • Login
LSAT Explanations » LSAT Preptest 70 » Logical Reasoning 1 » Question 11

LSAT 70, Logical Reasoning I, Q11

LSAT 70 Explanations

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Activist: Accidents at the Three Mile Island…

QUESTION TYPE: Argument Evaluation

CONCLUSION: This new sewage sludge fuel technology will help us meet our energy needs with less environmental harm and without nuclear power.

REASONING: The new technology can produce oil from sewage sludge.

ANALYSIS: The stimulus lists an advantage to sewage sludge: it’s not nuclear power. But that’s all we know.

There are many other questions:

  • Does sewage sludge pollute? Several answers address this.
  • Is sewage sludge expensive?
  • Is there enough sewage sludge to make an impact?

The wrong answer mentions that sewage sludge production has improved. I care about whether something is good now, not whether it recently got better.

___________

  1. If using sewage as fuel lets us avoid dumping sewage sludge, then this technology will be even more useful for protecting the environment.
  2. CORRECT. It doesn’t matter whether the processes have improved. That’s a relative term. We care whether the processes are currently good or bad. Those are absolute terms.If you get into a car, you care whether it is safe, not whether it is safer than it used to be. A car could be safer and still be a deathtrap.
  3. If sewage fuel is too expensive, then it can’t replace nuclear.
  4. If sewage fuel produces harmful gases, then switching to sewage from nuclear could increase pollution.
  5. If sewage fuel produces harmful waste, then it’s hard to see how it would be better than nuclear.

Previous Question
Table Of Contents
Next Question




Free Logical Reasoning lesson

Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

I created LSATHacks, and scored a 177 on the LSAT.

You should check out LSATHacks Pro

LSATHacks Pro has explanations for 6300+ LSAT questions, and over 50 hours of courses. All for $49.99/month. Join the club and I'll teach you how to think like a 170+ scorer.

LSATHacks Pro comes with a ten-day moneyback guarantee. You can find more reviews on the LSAT mastery seminars page. Many have seen improvement within a few days!
---------
Photos and Updates: If you have a question, you can follow us on Instagram here or send an email.

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Tia says

    May 25, 2016 at 10:00 pm

    I’m working on disproving all the wrong answer choices and I eliminated answer C because it says “economically”. No where in the stimulus does it talk about economics. Implying that the environmental concerns are the most important aspect of this argument (i.e. “better protects the environment from harm than we do at present.”)

    Is this one of those “obvious real-world” pieces of knowledge (that economics plays a factor in energy needs) that LSAT expects you to come into the test with?

    Reply
    • FounderGraeme says

      May 25, 2016 at 11:30 pm

      Yeah. I mean, if an energy plant cost 10 trillion dollars, it wouldn’t work, right? Cost is a valid consideration.

      Reply
  2. Daina says

    September 17, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    I oscillated between (A) and (B) for a bit before choosing that latter. Would it be good reasoning for this argument also to say that we don’t care about what happened BEFORE the sewage sludge became sewage sludge, we only care about the sewage sludge itself and what will CONSEQUENTLY be done with it? Eventually that’s why I chose (B). Then I considered (A) and decided that it’s relevant to know whether or not the sludge dumping does damage, because whether or not it does further justifies (or perhaps creates skepticism for) the usefulness of sludge transformation w/r to the environment.

    Reply
    • FounderGraeme Blake says

      October 5, 2015 at 7:27 pm

      No, we do care about the sewage sludge production process. If it’s very destructive to produce sewage sludge then it might not be a good replacement.

      The error with B is really the relative/absolute error: the production method could be better, but still horrible.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Free LSAT Email Course

My best LSAT tips, straight to your inbox


New! LSATHacks Pro: Get every course on LSATHacks for $49.99/month

LSATHacks Pro

Get a higher score with LSATHacks Pro

LSAT Course, LSAT Mastery seminars, and 3,000 extra explanations. All for $49.99/month, satisfaction guaranteed, no minimum commitment. Sign up here: https://lsathacks.com/lsathacks-pro/

Testimonials

Your emails are tremendously helpful. - Matt

Thanks for the tips! They were very helpful, and even make you feel like you studied a bit. Great insight and would love more! - Haj

Dear Graeme: MUCH MORE PLEASE!! Your explanations are very clear, and you give equal importance to why answers are WRONG, as well as why THE ANSWER is right!! Very well done. Thank you for all your efforts - Tom

These have been awesome. More please!!! - Caillie

The course was immensely helpful and has eased my nerves a lot. - Lovlean

© Copyright 2022 LSAT Hacks. All Rights Reserved. | FAQ/Legal

Disclaimer: Use of this site requires official LSAT preptests; the explanations are of no use without the preptests. If you do not have the accompanying preptests, you can find them here: LSAT preptests
LSAT is copyright of LSAC. LSAC does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services and has not reviewed this site.
×
Item Added to your Cart!
There are no products
Continue Shopping