LSAT Explanation PT 41, S3, Q4: Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from

LSAT Question Stem

The reasoning in the industrialist's argument is flawed because the argument 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first examine the structure of the argument in the passage. The industrialist is addressing the contention made by environmentalists that emissions from the factory pose a health risk. The industrialist argues that the only testimony supporting this claim comes from non-scientist residents living near the factory. Since only a trained scientist can determine whether the emissions are dangerous, the industrialist concludes that the factory's emissions present no health risk. In this argument, the premise is that only scientists can determine the danger of emissions, and the conclusion is that the factory's emissions present no health risk.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is there any testimony from trained scientists about the safety of the factory's emissions?"

The question type for this problem is Flaw, and we are asked to identify the flaw in the industrialist's reasoning. Let's analyze each answer choice:

a) The argument does not impugn the motives of the residents; it merely questions their qualifications to assess the danger of the emissions. This answer choice is incorrect.

b) The safety of emissions from other sources in the area is not relevant to the industrialist's argument about the factory's emissions. This answer choice is incorrect.

c) This answer choice correctly identifies the flaw in the argument. The industrialist claims that only scientists can determine the danger of the emissions, but does not present any testimony from scientists that the emissions are safe. By not providing such testimony, the industrialist fails to support their conclusion that the factory's emissions present no health risk. This answer choice is correct.

d) The benefits of the factory to the surrounding community are not relevant to the argument about the safety of the factory's emissions. This answer choice is incorrect.

e) The term "health risk" is not used with two different meanings in the argument, so there is no equivocation error. This answer choice is incorrect.

To further illustrate the flaw in the argument, consider this simple example: A child claims that a certain food tastes bad. The parent argues that only a professional chef can determine whether the food tastes bad, and the child is not a chef. Therefore, the parent concludes that the food tastes good. However, the parent does not present any testimony from a professional chef that the food tastes good. The argument is flawed because it fails to provide the necessary evidence from the qualified source (a professional chef) to support the conclusion.

In conclusion, the correct answer is C, as it points out the flaw in the industrialist's argument by highlighting the absence of testimony from scientists that the emissions are safe.