PrepTest 147, Section 4, Question 20
Edgar: Some of the pumps supplying water to(55 more words not shown)
The dialogue provides the most(11 more words not shown)
- Ashutting down the(9 more words not shown)
- Bthe survival of(12 more words not shown)
- Cspecies of small(3 more words not shown)
- Dthe order to(6 more words not shown)
- Eshutting down the(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why assume a small fish is inconsequential? A species could have an important ecological role even if it looks unimportant to us. Edgar hasn't established that protecting these fish is worthless; he has just described the inconvenience and dismissed the benefit.
What we’re looking for
Rafaela gives a more specific response: the threat to the fish signals a serious threat to the water supply. So her point is that Edgar has missed a reason to take the situation seriously. I'd initially describe their disagreement as whether the shutdown is absurd. The choices need to pin down the point behind that disagreement.
Working the answers
- A
Rafaela doesn't deny that shutting down the pumps will inconvenience people. Her response can grant that cost and still say there is a serious reason to act. We need a disagreement, not merely a fact Edgar mentions that Rafaela leaves unchallenged.
- BCorrect
Edgar evaluates the shutdown as though protecting the fish were its only justification: why inconvenience thousands of people for that? Rafaela says there is another concern—the threat to the water supply indicated by the danger to the fish. She needn't deny that protecting the fish is one reason. She rejects treating it as the only reason relevant to the shutdown.
- C
Rafaela doesn't argue that small fish in general are intrinsically important. She points to what the threat to this species tells us about the water supply. That response could matter even to someone who shared Edgar's low opinion of the fish themselves. Don't replace her particular warning with a broader claim she never makes.
- D
Neither speaker discusses whether the order was legal. Edgar calls it absurd, but a legal decision can still be foolish. Rafaela defends taking the problem seriously without offering any view about the government's legal authority.
- E
An order intended to protect the fish doesn't establish that shutting the pumps will be enough to protect them. Neither speaker takes a clear opposing position on whether the shutdown will fully succeed. The disagreement concerns the reasons for it, not whether it guarantees the intended result.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.