LSAT PrepTest 43 Section 1 Question 5 Explanation | Reading Comprehension

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

***


Here's a Reading Comprehension question from the June 2004 LSAT.

There's no need for a chain of phrases here, the question's quite straightforward. This is pretty much an evidence question, so let's remember to look back at the passage for the information we need instead of just trying to remember it. The passage says wells of the sort the question mentions "inevitably contaminate the groundwater" unless there are "appropriate safeguards" (lines 32-33). That safeguard is the "protective barrier" (lines 35-36) now made of "large metal pipe casings" (lines 40-41) the passage mentions. We're not quite sure what a pre-phrase would be here because a number of things are true about this situation, so let's jump into the answer choices:

A, B, D) All wrong for the exact same reason. They say that contamination is "unlikely," which is the opposite of what we want, since the passage clearly says contamination is inevitable without safeguards (the casings), and these choices don't mention the cases.

C) Beyond the passage's scope because it says the wells must be "abandoned," and the passage says nothing about that being needed to make the drilling safe. What's needed is the casings, not utter abandonment of the well.

E) Correct. Mentions the casings as a safeguard just as the passage did and doesn't say, incorrectly, that there is little risk even without those safeguards.

Remember:

On evidence questions, be sure to look back at the passage and, as usual, eliminate answer choices that are beyond the passage's scope or are the opposite of what we're looking for. Be sure to read carefully (but not too slowly) on RC to see exactly what the passage is and is not saying.