PrepTest 138, Section 4, Question 4
Ecologist: Landfills are generally designed to hold ten(53 more words not shown)
The claim that there will(17 more words not shown)
- AIt follows from(8 more words not shown)
- BIt is the(5 more words not shown)
- CIt establishes the(5 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(13 more words not shown)
- EIt is an(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if we open new landfills?
That is the immediate response to the prediction of an inevitable shortage. Existing landfills eventually filling up doesn't, by itself, tell us how many places will be available for future waste. Replacements could open as old sites close.
The ecologist raises that objection too. The ecologist's point is that the prediction rests on an unlikely assumption about no new landfills opening and is therefore unsound. That doesn't establish that a crisis is impossible. It challenges the reasoning offered for saying a crisis is inevitable.
What we’re looking for
Now the question asks about the claim that there will be a crisis. Whose claim is that? It belongs to the people the ecologist is arguing against. It is the target of the argument, not the ecologist's own conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
A landfill's being designed to hold ten years' worth of waste doesn't establish that there will be a shortage of landfills. We also need to know what happens when existing sites close. The opening of new sites is exactly the possibility the ecologist says the prediction overlooks.
- B
This is the other people's prediction. The ecologist's conclusion is that their prediction is unsound. Keeping those speakers separate prevents us from mistaking the claim under attack for the author's main point.
- C
The ecologist doesn't offer the crisis claim as evidence that the prediction is unsound. That would be a strange way to argue: relying on the very prediction being challenged. The ecologist instead points to the assumption about no new sites opening.
- DCorrect
The argument is designed to cast doubt on the crisis prediction. The ecologist identifies an assumption behind it and calls that assumption unlikely. Whether the objection ultimately settles what will happen is a separate issue; its role is clearly to challenge this claim.
- E
An intermediate conclusion would receive support and then serve as support for a further conclusion in the ecologist's argument. Here, the ecologist attacks the crisis prediction rather than using it as a step toward the main point. The reasoning doesn't build through that claim; it turns against it.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.