PrepTest 104, Section 4, Question 11
P: Complying with the new safety regulations is(79 more words not shown)
A point at issue between(5 more words not shown)
- Alast year's fire(7 more words not shown)
- Baccidents at the(6 more words not shown)
- Cthe new safety(9 more words not shown)
- Dit is useful(7 more words not shown)
- Ethe new safety(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the regulations weren't designed to prevent that fire. A rule about handling chemicals could prevent a spill without preventing last year's particular accident. P needs more than “this wouldn't have stopped the fire” to establish “this is useless.”
Q gives us another way the regulations could help: avoiding wasted money. If people follow them, some accidents will be prevented, and each laboratory accident wastes money even when nobody gets hurt. That gives Q a reason to call the regulations useful. Q doesn't need to show that they would have stopped the earlier fire.
What we’re looking for
The question asks where the speakers disagree. P says compliance has no use; Q says it has a use because it can prevent waste. Look for that direct disagreement, and check that both speakers take a side on whatever an answer says.
Working the answers
- A
P doesn't say whether the fire caused costly damage to the laboratory. P talks about the fire, its injuries, and whether these regulations would have prevented them. Q says laboratory accidents waste money, but P never denies that. There isn't a stated disagreement about the cost of last year's fire.
- B
P mentions injuries in one fire, not injuries in every accident. Q says money is wasted even if nobody is injured, so Q's financial point doesn't depend on inevitable injuries. We don't have one speaker asserting that all accidents injure people and the other rejecting it.
- C
P says the regulations don't address the fire's underlying causes. Q doesn't dispute that assessment. The regulations might fail to address those causes and still prevent other accidents that waste money. Q can make the entire response without disagreeing with P about the particular fire.
- DCorrect
Ask each speaker whether complying is useful. P explicitly says it is useless. Q supplies a standard for usefulness—potentially preventing wasted money—and explains why these regulations meet it if obeyed. So P says no and Q says yes. That is the disagreement the exchange establishes.
- E
Neither speaker predicts whether people are likely to follow the regulations. Q says what will happen if they are obeyed. That is different from saying that they probably will be obeyed. P could think everyone will comply and still think compliance is useless, so P's position doesn't settle the likelihood either.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.