LSAT Explanation PT 35, S1, Q8: Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Weaken question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

The question type for this problem is Weaken, and we are tasked with finding the answer choice that most seriously weakens the argument.

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage. The conclusion is that "the proposal is pointless," which is based on the premise that "hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases."

Now, let's consider an "Evaluate" question for this argument: "Do humans experience any negative effects from consuming lobsters that live in sewage-contaminated water?"

With this in mind, let's examine each answer choice:

a) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.

- This answer choice does not weaken the argument because the argument focuses on the effects of sewage contamination on lobsters. The presence of other contaminants is not relevant to the conclusion.

b) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.

- This answer choice does not weaken the argument because the focus is on lobsters caught in the harbor. The fact that lobsters live longer in the open ocean does not affect the argument about lobsters in the harbor.

c) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.

- This answer choice does not weaken the argument because the issue at hand is not breeding frequency, but the longevity of lobsters and their susceptibility to gill diseases.

d) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster.

- This answer choice does not weaken the argument because the method of detecting gill diseases is not relevant to the conclusion. The argument is based on the premise that lobsters do not live long enough to be harmed by the diseases, not on the detection of the diseases.

e) Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

- This is the correct answer choice. It weakens the argument by addressing the "Evaluate" question we identified earlier. If humans become ill from eating lobsters with gill diseases, and these diseases are more likely to occur in sewage-contaminated water, then the proposal to reroute sewage is not pointless, as it could potentially reduce the risk of humans becoming ill from consuming contaminated lobsters.