- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#26189
Complete Question Explanation
Method of Reasoning—AP. The correct answer choice is (D)
The argument/counterargument structure of the stimulus can be summarized as follows:
Anti-conclusion: As the number of active landfills consequently dwindles over the coming decade, there will inevitably be a crisis in landfill availability.
Counterpremise: The prediction relies on the unlikely assumption that no new landfills will open as currently active ones close.
Conclusion: The prediction is unsound.
The question stem here restates the claim about the crisis in landfill availability mentioned in the stimulus, and then asks what role that claim plays in the argument. Whenever a question stem quotes back text from the stimulus and asks you what “role” or what “part” that text plays in the argument, then you are dealing with a Method of Reasoning—Argument Part question.
The stimulus presents a common device used in many LSAT stimuli. The second sentence begins with the phrase “Some people maintain…” This is a variation on the classic “Some people argue…” construction. Whenever you see this type of construction, it is almost always used to introduce the argument of some other individual or group to which the author does not belong. In almost every case, the author proceeds to disagree with whatever that particular argument states. The stimulus here is no exception. Here, the “some people” are arguing that there will inevitably be a crisis in landfill availability and the author clearly disagrees.
Note the other common linguistic device used in these types of arguments: the word “however.” It is common to see the author introduce this other group’s argument, and follow that argument with the words “but” or “however.” This provides a very distinct shift in direction that sets off the author’s ultimate disagreement with the original argument.
Answer Choice (A): The claim about the inevitable crisis does not follow from the first sentence. It actually follows from the fact provided at the beginning of the second sentence that the number of landfills will dwindle over the coming decade.
Always take time to pin down exactly what the answer choice is saying in Method of Reasoning questions. The abstraction of the language can be difficult, and the more specific you can be with what the statement in the answer choice addresses, the easier it is to eliminate clear loser answer choices. Here, answer (A) is saying essentially that the claim about the landfill crisis is concluded from the premise that landfills are designed to own ten years’ worth of waste. This is clearly not an accurate description of the stimulus and is therefore wrong.
Answer Choice (B): The main conclusion of the argument is the last sentence of the stimulus, not the sentence cited in the question stem. Remember, the “main conclusion” will always refer to the author’s conclusion, not to the conclusion of any other party in the stimulus. So, while the claim about the landfill crisis is the conclusion for the argument made by “some people”, it does not reflect the main conclusion of the author’s argument. Ultimately, the author here concludes that the claim about the inevitable crisis is unsound.
Answer Choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect, as it suggests the claim about the landfill crisis proves the author’s conclusion. This is another way of saying that the statement justifies the conclusion of the author’s argument. The author’s conclusion is in no way supported by this claim. It is in direct opposition to it. Thus this answer is also incorrect.
Answer Choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The author ultimately concludes that the claim about the inevitable crisis in landfill availability is unsound. In other words, she is attacking, or casting doubt, on the claim about the landfill availability crisis.
Answer Choice (E): The statement is not an intermediate conclusion of the argument. An intermediate conclusion is a conclusion the author arrives at based on premises in the argument, which is in turn used to support the main conclusion of the argument. In other words, an intermediate conclusion serves a dual role as both a premise and a conclusion of the author’s argument. Here, the author argues against the claim in question. While the claim about the crisis in landfill availability is a conclusion, it is not a conclusion arrived at by the author; it is held by a different group of people. Also, the claim does not support the author’s main conclusion in any way. For these reasons, the claim is not an intermediate conclusion and the answer choice is incorrect.
Method of Reasoning—AP. The correct answer choice is (D)
The argument/counterargument structure of the stimulus can be summarized as follows:
Anti-conclusion: As the number of active landfills consequently dwindles over the coming decade, there will inevitably be a crisis in landfill availability.
Counterpremise: The prediction relies on the unlikely assumption that no new landfills will open as currently active ones close.
Conclusion: The prediction is unsound.
The question stem here restates the claim about the crisis in landfill availability mentioned in the stimulus, and then asks what role that claim plays in the argument. Whenever a question stem quotes back text from the stimulus and asks you what “role” or what “part” that text plays in the argument, then you are dealing with a Method of Reasoning—Argument Part question.
The stimulus presents a common device used in many LSAT stimuli. The second sentence begins with the phrase “Some people maintain…” This is a variation on the classic “Some people argue…” construction. Whenever you see this type of construction, it is almost always used to introduce the argument of some other individual or group to which the author does not belong. In almost every case, the author proceeds to disagree with whatever that particular argument states. The stimulus here is no exception. Here, the “some people” are arguing that there will inevitably be a crisis in landfill availability and the author clearly disagrees.
Note the other common linguistic device used in these types of arguments: the word “however.” It is common to see the author introduce this other group’s argument, and follow that argument with the words “but” or “however.” This provides a very distinct shift in direction that sets off the author’s ultimate disagreement with the original argument.
Answer Choice (A): The claim about the inevitable crisis does not follow from the first sentence. It actually follows from the fact provided at the beginning of the second sentence that the number of landfills will dwindle over the coming decade.
Always take time to pin down exactly what the answer choice is saying in Method of Reasoning questions. The abstraction of the language can be difficult, and the more specific you can be with what the statement in the answer choice addresses, the easier it is to eliminate clear loser answer choices. Here, answer (A) is saying essentially that the claim about the landfill crisis is concluded from the premise that landfills are designed to own ten years’ worth of waste. This is clearly not an accurate description of the stimulus and is therefore wrong.
Answer Choice (B): The main conclusion of the argument is the last sentence of the stimulus, not the sentence cited in the question stem. Remember, the “main conclusion” will always refer to the author’s conclusion, not to the conclusion of any other party in the stimulus. So, while the claim about the landfill crisis is the conclusion for the argument made by “some people”, it does not reflect the main conclusion of the author’s argument. Ultimately, the author here concludes that the claim about the inevitable crisis is unsound.
Answer Choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect, as it suggests the claim about the landfill crisis proves the author’s conclusion. This is another way of saying that the statement justifies the conclusion of the author’s argument. The author’s conclusion is in no way supported by this claim. It is in direct opposition to it. Thus this answer is also incorrect.
Answer Choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The author ultimately concludes that the claim about the inevitable crisis in landfill availability is unsound. In other words, she is attacking, or casting doubt, on the claim about the landfill availability crisis.
Answer Choice (E): The statement is not an intermediate conclusion of the argument. An intermediate conclusion is a conclusion the author arrives at based on premises in the argument, which is in turn used to support the main conclusion of the argument. In other words, an intermediate conclusion serves a dual role as both a premise and a conclusion of the author’s argument. Here, the author argues against the claim in question. While the claim about the crisis in landfill availability is a conclusion, it is not a conclusion arrived at by the author; it is held by a different group of people. Also, the claim does not support the author’s main conclusion in any way. For these reasons, the claim is not an intermediate conclusion and the answer choice is incorrect.
