Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
June 1994 LSAT
The fact that tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers harms the smokers does not prove that the much smaller amount of tobac...
on July 14, 2015
Please explain a-e
on July 16, 2015
Alright so let's break down this argument:
We are saying that there is no evidence that just because tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers harms the smokers does not mean that much smaller amount of tobacco smoke inhaled by nonsmokers who share living space with smokers harms the nonsmokers to some degree. As an example to support this, we are told that vitamin A, like many substances, is toxic in large quantities, but beneficial in small quantities.
So, the argument follows that just because something is bad in large quantities doesn't mean that it is bad in small quantities as well; and then we are given an example to show this.
Answer choice (E) follows the same reasoning.
We have something is bad in large quantities: watching television for half of every day would be a waste of time, but that doesn't mean that this thing in small quantities is necessarily bad: watching television briefly every day is not necessarily a small waste of time; and then we are given an example to show this: it is a waste to sleep half of every day, but some sleep every day is a good thing.
So, as you can see, answer choice (E) is correct because it follows the same pattern of reasoning as the argument.
If you have any specific questions on any of the other answer choices, please feel free to clarify.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
on October 21, 2018
Is C wrong just because it isn't specifically drawing a conclusion about a "small" amount of fertilizer?
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.