Town Councilor: LSAT

[ankit0411]

Town Councilor: The only reason for the town to have ordinances restricting where skateboarding can be done would be to protect children from danger. Skateboarding in the town's River Park is undoubtedly dangerous, but we should not pass an ordinance prohibiting it. If children cannot skateboard in the park, they will most certainly skateboard in the streets. And skateboarding in the streets is more dangerous that skateboarding in the park.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the town councilor's argument?

(a) The reason for requiring environmental reviews is to ensure that projected developments do not harm the natural environment. Currently, environmental concerns are less compelling than economic concerns, but in the long run, the environment must be protected. Therefore, the requirement for environmental reviews should not be waived.
(b) Insecticides are designed to protect crops against insect damage. Aphids damage tomato crops, but using insecticides against aphids kills wasps that prey on insecticide-resistant pests. Since aphids damage tomato crops less than the insecticide-resistant pests do, insecticides should not be used against aphids on tomato crops.
(c) The purpose of compulsory vaccination for schoolchildren was to protect both the children themselves and others in the community against smallpox. Smallpox was indeed a dreadful disease, but it has now been eliminated from the word's population. So children should not be vaccinated against it.
(d) The function of a sealer on wood siding is to retard deterioration caused by weather. However, cedar is a wood that is naturally resistant to weather-related damage and thus does not need additional protection. Sealers, therefore, should not be applied to cedar siding.
(e) Traffic patterns that involve one-way streets are meant to accelerate the flow of traffic in otherwise congested areas. However, it would be detrimental to the South Main Street area to have traffic move faster. So traffic pattern involving one-way streets should not be implemented there.

OA to follow after some discussion.

[everything's eventual]

Wow...this is a tough one...

My understanding of the question stem is as follows :

Ordinances restricting places where skateboarding can be done would protect children from danger. Such ordinances will force children to do Y if X is restricted. Y is more dangerous/detrimental than X,so X should not be restricted.

I find it very difficult to actually explain why each wrong option is wrong. But the only option in line with my understanding of the question stem is [spoiler]B)[/spoiler].

Insecticides are designed to protect crops but if they are used then it becomes more detrimental to the tomato crops. So insecticides should not be used. ( Insecticides = Ordinances , Children = crops)

I would've chosen B

[ankit0411]

Wow...this is a tough one...

My understanding of the question stem is as follows :

Ordinances restricting places where skateboarding can be done would protect children from danger. Such ordinances will force children to do Y if X is restricted. Y is more dangerous/detrimental than X,so X should not be restricted.

I find it very difficult to actually explain why each wrong option is wrong. But the only option in line with my understanding of the question stem is [spoiler]B)[/spoiler].

I would've chosen B

Your right but why not E ?

[everything's eventual]

I just edited my earlier reply a bit.

Anyway, even I had shortlisted E. The question stem mentions that "something" more dangerous will happen if the ordinance is implemented. Option B states the " something " more dangerous will happen if insecticides are used. Option E only states that it is detrimental and does not mention what will happen if traffic moves faster.

I hope I am being clear.

[ankit0411]

I just edited my earlier reply a bit.

Anyway, even I had shortlisted E. The question stem mentions that "something" more dangerous will happen if the ordinance is implemented. Option B states the " something " more dangerous will happen if insecticides are used. Option E only states that it is detrimental and does not mention what will happen if traffic moves faster.

I hope I am being clear.

Yea, that makes some sense !

[kassim]

B but it took me 5 min to answer it

[vikram4689]

my reason for why E is incorrect

both question stem and B discuss a situation in which implementing an ordinance to prevent a dangerous situation will lead to even more dangerous situation. eventhough E says more congestion will result but E does not talk about the same place from where congestion was intended to remove. I mean flaw in E is that ,unlike in B, more dangerous situation is NOT created in the same place where action was initialized to prevent a dangerous situation.

i hope it helps