PrepTest 142, Section 1, Question 14
Currently, no satellite orbiting Earth is at significant(70 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(35 more words not shown)
- AIt is an(12 more words not shown)
- BIt is an(16 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(19 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(7 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
One collision could create the material for many more.
Imagine a pile of explosive charges: one goes off and sets off others. The satellite argument describes a similar chain reaction. A collision creates thousands of fragments, the fragments can shatter other satellites, and those collisions produce still more fragments. The danger feeds on itself.
My first guess about increasing risk might have been simply that people will launch more satellites. But that isn't the explanation the author actually develops. The given reason is the multiplying debris from collisions. Perhaps someone could remove the debris; the passage doesn't discuss that possibility, and we don't need to settle it to identify the argument's structure.
What we’re looking for
The question points to the prediction that collision risk will rise dramatically. Why believe it? Because of the chain reaction just described. That makes the prediction the conclusion being supported, even though it appears before the explanation.
Working the answers
- A
The prediction is supported. The following sentences explain how one collision could lead to more debris and further collisions. It also isn't a premise used to establish a separate conclusion; it is the claim that this explanation is meant to establish.
- B
This again calls the prediction unsupported. But we are given the debris mechanism as support. B also places the claim at the start of a longer chain supporting some final point, whereas the increasing-risk prediction is itself the point the argument defends.
- C
The first part fits: the argument gives support for the claim. The second part does not. The author doesn't use the prediction as a steppingstone to a further conclusion. The later description of dangerous debris explains the prediction; it isn't a separate recommendation or result inferred from the prediction.
- DCorrect
The author wants us to believe that future collision risk will increase dramatically, then explains why through the multiplying debris. The low current risk sets up the contrast; the chain reaction supports the future-risk conclusion.
- E
The current low risk helps provide background. The future increase is the central prediction the author argues for. Treating that claim as dispensable background misses what the whole explanation is trying to persuade us to accept.
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.