LSAT PrepTest 37 Section 2 Question 23 Explanation | Logical Reasoning

I didn't write the following blog post. It was already on the blog when I took over the URL. The following blog post may contain mistakes. -Steve

***


This Logical Reasoning (Arguments) question is from the June 2002 LSAT.

Let's make a concise chain of phrases that shows where the argument is going (as you gain experience, you can underline or do this in your head, usually):

Roxanne: Buy no new ivory --> antique ivory doesn't cause poaching --> antique ivory is okay

Salvador: Big demand for antique ivory --> can't get antique, so people buy new ivory --> should buy no ivory

What Salvador's basically saying is that buying antique ivory pushes up demand for it, and people can't get it so easily as a result, so the demand spills over to new ivory, which provides an incentive to poach. So, let's pre-phrase. Their views differ as to "whether not buying antique ivory results in less incentive to poach."

We see immediately that B fits this pretty well; both hit the point about less demand for antique ivory meaning less demand for new ivory (and, our pre-phrase adds, less incentive to poach as a result). Let's go through the other answer choices quickly:

A) Beyond the scope. Whether there are substitutes isn't what they're disagreeing about...Roxanne is saying that buying antique ivory doesn't push up the demand for new ivory, and Salvador is disagreeing, saying that it does. They don't even mention substitutes (even though the possibility of substitutes might be important in their argument), and aren't arguing about them.

B) Correct.

C) The opposite of what we want. This is something on which they agree, and we're looking for something on which they differ. Both speakers justify their argument in terms of what's good for elephants and reducing the demand for new ivory (which causes poaching). They agree on this.

D) The opposite of what we want. They agree that purchasing new ivory is bad because it drives up demand for it and causes poaching and that people shouldn't buy new ivory so the demand will decrease and elephants will be better off.

E) The opposite of what we need, again. They agree on this. Roxanne says antique ivory is okay while new ivory isn't, and Salvador says both are bad. But they agree that new ivory is bad.

Remember:

1) Make a chain of phrases (in your head or by underlining a few words in the passage, once you get more experienced, but probably by writing it down for now) so you can follow the argument's logic. On questions with 2 speakers that asks what they differ on, be very clear on what each person is arguing.

2) Watch out for answer choices that are the opposite of what we want (in this case, something the pair agrees on) or are beyond the scope of the argument (here, if they aren't mentioning it at all, it can't be what they're disagreeing about!). These two categories will usually eliminate all wrong answer choices.

3) Pre-phrase an answer to save time plodding through wrong answers when you can. Here, it's easy, since there's one definite answer (what they were disagreeing about).