LSAT 90, Reading Comprehension, Q2, LSATHacks

DISCUSSION: Most strongly suggest questions can either be about the passage broadly or reference specific pieces of information mentioned in the passage. Preparation for this type of question is determined by how well you read the passage and how well you understood the author’s opinions.

On this passage, two questions specifically reference paragraph 3, so it’s clear that that was the section of the passage the LSAC expected you to not understand fully. When reviewing, you should look for these common patterns in order to train your ability to spot potentially crucial areas on new passages.

___________

1. The passage says industries are turning away from landfills and incinerators because they’re expensive, not because they’re unsafe.
2. Injections must be at least 300m deep to be safe from aquifers, but beyond 1,800m, it’s no longer cost-effective. So this answer choice is wrong since it says 1,800m is less expensive, and the stimulus doesn’t mention if it’s more dangerous.
3. CORRECT. This is an inference we can make from paragraph 3 (and summarized in 4). Paragraph 3 says we don’t know which direction the injected waste would flow: it can end up thousands of meters away from the injection site. (The waste is injected into salt water, and paragraph 3 says underground water can move great distances, against gravity.)
4. The passage doesn’t talk about landfills to any great extent so we don’t know if they would contaminate groundwater.
5. This is wrong. Paragraph 1 says that waste injection sites need to be at least 300 meters deep, which would place it at a safe distance below aquifers. Aquifers are where we draw drinking water from, so this means wells are shallower than waste injection sites.

   Also, use some common sense: you’ve surely heard stories of people falling into drinking water wells (and surviving). Drinking wells aren’t deeper than 300m! That’s 328 yards deep!

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---