WeakenDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: A company representative tries to soothe public fears about a chemical leak by pointing out that modern laws require chemicals to be tested for safety, much like medicines.

Conclusion: The public does not need to be concerned about the chemicals leaking from the company's long-established dump.

Reasoning: Federal law mandates that all new chemicals and pharmaceutical substances undergo safety testing before they are marketed.

Analysis: The representative's argument relies on a shaky analogy between the 'long-established' dump and 'new' chemicals. If the dump is old, the chemicals inside it might have been produced and dumped long before these safety laws were even written. To weaken this, we should look for an answer that exposes this chronological gap or suggests that the specific chemicals in the dump aren't covered by the 'new chemical' regulations. A bit of corporate deflection is at play here, so stay skeptical of the timeline.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

9.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative's implied argument that the public need not be concerned about the leak?

Correct Answer
C
It shows the testing law for nonpharmaceutical chemicals is recent and that tens of thousands of older chemicals—many dangerous—predate it. Given the dump is long-established, its contents likely include untested chemicals, so the representative’s reassurance does not apply to what is actually leaking.
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