Flawed ReasoningDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: The tourist industry won't ruin the beach because doing so would drive away their customers, so environmentalists can relax.

Conclusion: Environmentalists do not need to worry about the tourist industry damaging seaside environments.

Reasoning: Since environmental damage makes areas unattractive to tourists and the industry would never knowingly hurt its own interests, it follows that they will not knowingly damage the environment.

Analysis: This argument suffers from a classic case of assuming that what is bad for the environment is always, and to the same degree, bad for business. It is a bit optimistic to think that 'excessive development' is the only way to harm an ecosystem; the industry might find a way to profit from 'moderate' damage that doesn't yet scare off the tourists. The flaw lies in the gap between the industry's self-interest and the environment's total well-being. Look for an answer that points out that the industry might still cause significant environmental harm as long as that harm doesn't immediately translate into a loss of revenue.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

12.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

Correct Answer
D
The argument moves from “they won’t knowingly do what harms the industry” to “they won’t harm the environment,” ignoring that harm to the environment could be unintentional. That gap undermines the conclusion that there’s nothing to fear from the industry.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep