Critical Reasoning

LSAT problem example 1: water pollution

Here is an example of a good LSAT question to attempt while studying for the GMAT. You can use regular GMAT strategies to address this problem. (Explanation and Official Answer to follow in a later post).


"7. Studies indicate that the rate at which water pollution is increasing is leveling off: the amount of water pollution caused this year is almost identical to the amount caused last year. If this trend continues the water pollution problem will no longer be getting more serious.

The reasoning is questionable because it ignores the possibility that:

A) some types of water pollution have no noticeable effect on organisms that use the water.


B) the types of water pollution caused this year are less dangerous than those caused last year.


C) the leveling off trend of water pollution will not continue.


D) air and soil pollution are becoming more serious.


E) the effects of water pollution are cumulative.


Source: Official LSAT from October 1997, question 7 of section 3. Question found in "10 More Actual , Official PrepTests" copyright Law School Admissions Council, 2007, page 165.

IMO- E

My take -
Conclusion - If this trend continues the water pollution problem will no longer be getting more serious.
Premise - Studies indicate that the rate at which water pollution is increasing is leveling off
Premise -the amount of water pollution caused this year is almost identical to the amount caused last year.
Conclusion is conditional, if the trend continues, so assuming that the trend continues we have to find another possibility which weakens the argument.
A - Some types of water pollutants and noticeable effects on organisms. Doesn't help, cannot distinguish between "serious" and unnoticeable effects.
B - Tends to strengthen.
C - Assumption is that the trend continues, can be ruled out.
D - Not relevant.
E - Correct. If the problem is cumulative then water pollution, when the trend continues, will be a bigger problem.

David@VeritasPrep wrote:LSAT problem example 1: water pollution

Here is an example of a good LSAT question to attempt while studying for the GMAT. You can use regular GMAT strategies to address this problem. (Explanation and Official Answer to follow in a later post).


"7. Studies indicate that the rate at which water pollution is increasing is leveling off: the amount of water pollution caused this year is almost identical to the amount caused last year. If this trend continues the water pollution problem will no longer be getting more serious.

The reasoning is questionable because it ignores the possibility that:

A) some types of water pollution have no noticeable effect on organisms that use the water.


B) the types of water pollution caused this year are less dangerous than those caused last year.


C) the leveling off trend of water pollution will not continue.


D) air and soil pollution are becoming more serious.


E) the effects of water pollution are cumulative.


Source: Official LSAT from October 1997, question 7 of section 3. Question found in "10 More Actual , Official PrepTests" copyright Law School Admissions Council, 2007, page 165.

yes E too....L(

Got it down to B & E, chose B. Not sure about "the effects" in choice E.

OA is E.

Beat GMAT 09 has given a great explanation above (no need to duplicate that!). So I will comment on the general points to take away from this.

First, I think that this question translates very well from the LSAT to the GMAT (that was actually the point of this posting -- to give an example of the type of question that you should be looking to use when studying).

Second, let's look at the question stem....This question stem states: "The reasoning is questionable because it ignores the possibility that" in the Veritas Critical Reasoning 2 book we classify this as a subtype of the Weaken question. In some cases the "flaw" type of question will ask you to describe the flaw in abstract language, such as "the argument ignores the possibility of an alternate cause." In this case the answer choices are the standard weaken choices that state facts that would weaken the conclusion.

GTR_02 - Answer Choice E states that the "effects" of water pollution are cumulative and it is the "effects" part that you were concerned about. However, the effects ties in very well with the conclusion, which states "If this trend continues the water pollution problem will no longer be getting more serious." The word problem is the key here. The water pollution "problem" sounds very much like the result of the "effects" of the water pollution. You are very correct to look for the specific words, in this case they seem to fit.

Nice work!!