# June 2013 LSAT, LR1, Q4, a misguided chemical company employee

Crowdsourcing the June 2013 LSAT:  June 2013 LSAT Explanation Central | About this project The LSAT didn't come easy to Nikki Garcia, but she kept with it. I had her in class for 8 weeks in 2012, and another 4 weeks in 2013. Some students, when the LSAT doesn't immediately bend to their will, get discouraged and cranky. You learn a lot about people from how they respond to adversity. Nikki always showed up with a smile, and near the very end of class it suddenly started to click. The LSAT is no obstacle for people who really want to be lawyers. Last time I talked to her, it seemed like Nikki really does want to practice. If that's the direction she decides to go, she'll do great. But she'll do great no matter what she decides to do.

Guest blogger: Nikki Garcia

The chemical company employee starts her conclusion with a naughty word: "Clearly."

Let the red flags rain: "Clearly?" Where the hell did you get size from? And what if your company was 1% and the other four were together 59% of the 60? Or if the other 'chemical companies similar in size' were just two companies that made up for, I don't know, 20% each and thereby the remaining 40% of the pollution? Not such a bad polluter now, are you?" Suck it, LSAT: I see the gap in your argument.

This is a Necessary Assumption question, so we're looking for an answer that, if untrue, will totally ruin Captain Chevron's argument. I'm looking for something that calls out the fact that his company could actually account for very little of the 60 percent. Arm yourself with a prediction before wading into the answer swamp. And since it's a Necessary Assumption question, I know that I have the additional weapon of double-checking my answer choice: if I negate the correct answer, the argument will be completely destroyed.

Boot straps pulled up, on to the questions.

A. The conservation group that produced the study is not hosti--NO. Not related to what I'm looking for. For a nanosecond I wonder what kind of argument this would look like if this was the correct answer. Next. B.  The employee's company does not produce chemicals whose processing naturally produces more pollutants than the chemicals-- Here, I momentarily fall asleep in between this rambling, irrelevant answer choice, only to awake to see it's still going on-- Next. C. The total pollution produced by all small chemical companies combined is not greatly outweighed by that produced by large chemical companies. This doesn't say anything regarding Captain Chevron's company potentially being a small percentage. Next. D. The four other companies mentioned by the employee do not together account for very close to 60 percent of the total pollution by the 30 companies. Bam. Aligns with the general idea of my prediction, which would call into question the quantity of pollutants by the OTHER companies. And if we negate it, it reads "the four other companies DO together account for close to 60%”¦" We're good to go... this is our answer. E. Always read all the answer choices, just in case. And”¦ this one's out with the compost. D it is.

From Nikki:  Nikki has the great fortune of having crippling test anxiety and has been in the LSAT ring three times now. Since her journey with Fox Test Prep, her LSAT score has increased by 14 points. She shed actual, adult tears of joy when the LSAC informed her that her June 2013 test results were the highest she'd ever scored. She also makes a mean sazerac.

Please ask questions and/or suggest corrections to anything that seems confusing... we want to make this the best resource we can for LSAT students. We'll have all the June 2013 explanations up as quickly as possible. Thanks for reading. Tell your friends! --nathan