LR Question 2 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Columnist: Making some types of products from recycled…
QUESTION TYPE: Flaw
CONCLUSION: Products made from recycled material probably damage the environment as much as non recycled material.
REASONING: Both methods use the same amount of energy, which damages the environment.
ANALYSIS: The columnist focuses only on the energy production aspect. Is it possible that using recycled material yields other environmental benefits? The columnist doesn’t consider this possibility. The correct answer would point out the possibility of advantages of making products from recycled materials.
___________
- This is just wrong. “Environment” is used in the same sense throughout the stimulus, to mean nature.
Example of flaw: The work environment at Greenpeace is bad, so Greenpeace is bad for the environment. - This argument doesn’t mention anything about an effect of the environmental damage.
Example of flaw: Using too much energy heats the atmosphere, so heating the atmosphere causes energy use. - The stimulus talks about “some” types of recycled products. Its conclusion is only about those types. So there’s no need for these products to be representative in general.
Example of flaw: Aluminum cans are useful to recycle. So we can conclude all recycling (which is mostly plastic) is useful. - CORRECT. This one matches our prephrase. It could be that production of recycled products damages the environment as much as non recycled, but maybe they have other benefits, such as not taking as much energy to dispose of.
- Here’s another answer choice mentioning a causal flaw. The columnist doesn’t mention any order for the events, and doesn’t conclude that one caused the other.
Example of flaw: I recycled a bottle yesterday, then I stubbed my toe today. I am never recycling again!
Recap: The question begins with “Columnist: Making some types of products from recycled”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
Hi, I was wondering if C would be called the Hasty generalization / Overgeneralization flaw?
and also, this answer choice is only correct if the conclusion goes from some or few to All?
Hi! Yes, C could be called overgeneralization. This happens when you make a conclusion about an entire group based on an unrepresentative sample (as in Graeme’s example, concluding all recycling is useful based on evidence of just aluminium cans).
And you’re also correct that C would apply if the stimulus had drawn a conclusion about all recycled materials based on reasoning about “some” of such products, which isn’t the case here.