- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:36 am
#36707
Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14600)
The correct answer choice is (E)
This question tests readers’ ability to apply the principles of the passage to an analogous situation.
It adds several elements to the discussion – the size of the city, the relative size of the groundwater
formation and the saline formation, and the absence of oil – about which no specific information is
given in the passage. Therefore, any inferences which are contingent upon those specific factors are
unwarranted and cannot be the basis for the correct answer choice. What can be known is that drilling
oil wells connects all formations that it penetrates (saline water, groundwater, and oil) and that the
contamination is inevitable unless appropriate safeguards are implemented (lines 28-33). Since the
passage lists saline water as a contaminant of groundwater (lines 30-33), the correct answer choice must
take into account the possibility of contamination.
Answer choice (A): Answer choice (A) can be eliminated because it contradicts the information about
the inevitability of contamination among all penetrated formations; whether the well actually operates or
not is irrelevant since the conduit has already been created.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice asks test takers to make an unwarranted inference based upon
their understanding of water supplies in large cities. Is it likely that a large city will have more than
one water source? Of course. But this assumption does not follow from the information in the passage,
nor does it affect the actual danger to human health from groundwater contamination. Groundwater
contamination remains a danger to human health regardless of how many drinking water sources a city
has.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice may be appealing if “plugging and abandoning a well” is
equated to implementing appropriate safeguards. However, it cannot be assumed to be similar, nor can it
be accepted as correct since it introduces an idea that does not appear in the passage.
Answer choice (D): No proper inference about the dilution of saline water in groundwater can be
drawn from the information in this passage. The idea of groundwater contamination is treated as an
absolute throughout the passage, and as a result, test takers should accept the idea that any amount of
contamination is to be avoided.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Independent of considerations about the city’s
size or the absence of oil, the question specifically states that both formations were penetrated. From the
passage, readers know contamination will occur unless appropriate safeguards are implemented. Setting
the casings properly and monitoring them routinely certainly seem to be appropriate measures and can
be logically said to reduce the risk of contamination (i.e. from 100% risk to something less than 100%).
This is the only answer choice that does not make any unwarranted assumptions.
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14600)
The correct answer choice is (E)
This question tests readers’ ability to apply the principles of the passage to an analogous situation.
It adds several elements to the discussion – the size of the city, the relative size of the groundwater
formation and the saline formation, and the absence of oil – about which no specific information is
given in the passage. Therefore, any inferences which are contingent upon those specific factors are
unwarranted and cannot be the basis for the correct answer choice. What can be known is that drilling
oil wells connects all formations that it penetrates (saline water, groundwater, and oil) and that the
contamination is inevitable unless appropriate safeguards are implemented (lines 28-33). Since the
passage lists saline water as a contaminant of groundwater (lines 30-33), the correct answer choice must
take into account the possibility of contamination.
Answer choice (A): Answer choice (A) can be eliminated because it contradicts the information about
the inevitability of contamination among all penetrated formations; whether the well actually operates or
not is irrelevant since the conduit has already been created.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice asks test takers to make an unwarranted inference based upon
their understanding of water supplies in large cities. Is it likely that a large city will have more than
one water source? Of course. But this assumption does not follow from the information in the passage,
nor does it affect the actual danger to human health from groundwater contamination. Groundwater
contamination remains a danger to human health regardless of how many drinking water sources a city
has.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice may be appealing if “plugging and abandoning a well” is
equated to implementing appropriate safeguards. However, it cannot be assumed to be similar, nor can it
be accepted as correct since it introduces an idea that does not appear in the passage.
Answer choice (D): No proper inference about the dilution of saline water in groundwater can be
drawn from the information in this passage. The idea of groundwater contamination is treated as an
absolute throughout the passage, and as a result, test takers should accept the idea that any amount of
contamination is to be avoided.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Independent of considerations about the city’s
size or the absence of oil, the question specifically states that both formations were penetrated. From the
passage, readers know contamination will occur unless appropriate safeguards are implemented. Setting
the casings properly and monitoring them routinely certainly seem to be appropriate measures and can
be logically said to reduce the risk of contamination (i.e. from 100% risk to something less than 100%).
This is the only answer choice that does not make any unwarranted assumptions.