LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

User avatar
 Amber Thomas
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: Oct 03, 2024
|
#110282
Hi Morgan!

We can actually cite the stimulus in drawing this conclusion about fault lines: "since no minor fault in a geologically quiet region produces an earthquake more often than once in any given 100,000-year period, it follows that of all potential nuclear reactor sites in such a region, those that are least likely to be struck by an earthquake are ones located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory."

It is explicitly stated that minor fault lines VERY RARELY produce earthquakes, therefore, it is unlikely that nuclear reactors placed near minor fault lines will experience an earthquake. We can infer from this, and the fact that scientists specifically put their nuclear reactors in areas with minor faults, that major fault lines or plate boundaries would produce more earthquakes or "geological noise." It logically follows that one would want their nuclear reactor away from an area that has frequent earthquakes, and in an area with relatively infrequent earthquakes.

I hope this helps!
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5374
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#110321
I don't think the stimulus requires us to know anything about fault lines or earthquakes, Morgan2cats. We just have to analyze the structure of the argument. Let's change the topic slightly to illustrate:

Some cities have a lot of coffee shops, and some of those coffee shops take advantage of their customers by tricking them into buying extra stuff that they don't need and that aren't good for them. Other coffee shops in these cities are totally honest and never do that. So, if you live in one of these cities and you are concerned about being tempted into spending too much money on coffee, the best place to live is near an honest coffee shop.

This argument fails to consider that there might be places in the city that aren't near ANY coffee shops, and that those might be even better places to avoid temptation to spend too much on coffee. To fix that flaw, the author must assume that if you live in one of these cities, you are going to have to live near at least one coffee shop. Similar argument structure, same assumption, different topic, and no outside knowledge required!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.