PT 54, Section 4, #16, How is (A) the flaw in the argument?

Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

PT 54, Section 4, #16, How is (A) the flaw in the argument?

Postby secretad » Tue May 03, 2011 2:55 pm

The conclusion is that such colonies will ALMOST certainly be built and severe overcrowding on Earth relieved.

His premises were essentially that it is costly to build colonies on the moon, but that humans already can do it because they have the technology. And Max states that as the human population increases and the amount of space in which to live on Earth decreases, there will be a growing economic incentive to build those moon colonies to house some of the population.

Answer choice (A) states that the argument assumes that the economic incentive to build colonies on the moon will grow sufficiently to cause the costly project to be undertaken.

I would agree with this answer choice if the conclusion given by Max did not offer the wiggle room with ALMOST certainly. Max is not saying that the incentive WILL sufficiently reach the point to construct, he says ALMOST certainly?

Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: PT 54, Section 4, #16, How is (A) the flaw in the argument?

Postby kehoema2 » Tue May 03, 2011 3:28 pm

I haven't seen this question in a while, but if I remember correctly here's two things for you.

1. In a tough situation like this, stop focusing on why it's the correct answer. If I remember correctly, all the other answers are just simply incorrect. Yes I don't feel incredibly comfortable when I can only knock out all the wrong answers but sometimes you have to do that.
2. I think you should look at all the premises and then conclusion. All we have is premises about the economic incentive and then suddenly a conclusion that it will almost definitely occur. The argument never takes into account other alternative causes that could make the people live on the moon (I don't know say pollution or some other nonsense, could happen). This is possible and would show the conclusion to be true without the premises to be true. Because the argument never takes into account other alternate causes or rules them out, it assumes economic incentive is the only cause.

Hope some of this was even marginally helpful. Sorry I haven't looked at the question in a while, but I'm almost positive I remember it. Good luck.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests