LSAT 146 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q22

LR Question 22 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: In 2005, an environmental group conducted a study…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Banning PCBs helped reduce our exposure to those chemicals.

REASONING: The authors relies on a sample which is too small.

ANALYSIS: The author actually says what error they’re making. Their sample size is too small. But then they go on to draw conclusions from that small sample.

So, the author contradicts themselves. That’s the flaw.

___________

1. CORRECT. See the analysis above. The author draws a conclusion from a small sample size, therefore contradicting their statement that the sample size is too small to make conclusions.
    
   Inconsistent = contradiction.
2. The author actually didn’t talk about the effects of chemicals (apart from “toxic”). They just talked about whether PCBs were present.
    
   The author is not saying no other chemicals are toxic.
3. This is a different flaw. This answer describes the flaw of assuming you’re right because no one has proved you wrong.
4. This is a different flaw.
    
   Example of flaw: Crime has declined, and so has the number of police officers. So, police officers must cause crime.
    
   (The flaw is ignoring the possibility that police budgets are cut due to a reduced need to fight crime).
5. The argument wasn’t about the effects of PCBs. It was about what conclusions we could draw about the presence of PCBs.