PrepTest 122, Section 4, Question 15
According to the proposed Factory Safety Act, a(61 more words not shown)
The argument proceeds(1 more words not shown)
- Apointing out how(18 more words not shown)
- Bconsidering two possible(12 more words not shown)
- Cshowing that the(12 more words not shown)
- Dshowing that two(17 more words not shown)
- Epointing out that(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
To operate an automobile factory, you need class B registration. To have class B registration, you need punctual inspections. Put the requirements together: operating that factory requires punctual inspections.
We don't need a technical definition of class B to follow this. Its role is to connect the two rules. If the factory fails the inspection requirement, it can't qualify as class B; without class B status, it can't operate as an automobile factory under this act.
What we’re looking for
Could a small rescheduling still count as punctual? That's a question we might raise about how the act defines its terms. The author treats postponing an inspection as failing the punctuality requirement. But this question asks how the argument proceeds, so focus on the reasoning the author uses: combine the two provisions to rule out operating an automobile factory while postponing its inspections.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The two provisions are the class B requirement for automobile factories and the punctual-inspection requirement for class B factories. Together, the author uses them to rule out a particular situation: an operating automobile factory postponing its inspections. That is what the answer's phrase “jointly entail the unacceptability of a certain state of affairs” describes. Each provision supplies a link needed to reach that result.
- B
Two rules aren't two interpretations of one rule. The author states both provisions and applies them together. There is no discussion of competing meanings followed by a decision that one is less plausible.
- C
Existing legislation never appears. We have provisions of a proposed act and a conclusion about what would follow under that act. Nothing compares it with current law or establishes that the two are incompatible.
- D
The provisions work together; they don't conflict. One says what automobile factories need, and the other says what that required status needs. It is perfectly possible for a factory to satisfy both by registering as class B and meeting the inspection requirement.
- E
We aren't taking one particular factory and extending its treatment to a similar factory. The argument applies general rules to the category of automobile factories. It links requirements within the proposed act rather than drawing an analogy between specific situations.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.