June 2013 LSAT, LR2, Q25, Pauline should slap Roger in the face

Crowdsourcing the June 2013 LSAT:  June 2013 LSAT Explanation Central | About this project Think, for a moment, how hard you would like to slap Roger if you were Pauline. Not a court in the world would convict her (if I were universal dictator). SMACK! "Roger, you incredible dumbass. I didn't say that we weren't already in trouble energy-wise. What I said was that we would be in even worse trouble energy-wise if we breached the dams to save the salmon."

Never forget this: If you can get pissed off at the stupid things people say in these LSAT arguments, you're already more than halfway to the correct answer. I don't care what type of question this might turn out to be. The point is to understand that Roger's response to Pauline is really pretty idiotic. It's almost like he said "well, we're already pretty fat anyway, so why not go ahead and eat that bacon-wrapped donut?"

The question asks us to identify something that Pauline and Roger have agreed on. I can't predict this one in advance. Instead, I'll just go through the answer choices and discard any answer that I'm not sure they both have said "yes" to. It's a pretty easy type of question, once you get the hang of it.

A. Neither speaker took a position on whether nuclear power would be able to fill a gap in power production. No way.

B. Both speakers seem to agree with this statement. Pauline cites "growing population and booming industry," and is afraid of "skyrocketing" electricity costs, which suggests pretty strongly that she doesn't think the demand for power is about to collapse. Roger says "we are at capacity" and "we need more energy," which means that he doesn't foresee a coming drop in power demand either. I'd be happy with this answer, if we can eliminate C-E.

C. Nah, neither speaker took a position on what happens if the dams don't operate at optimal capacity.

D. This seems completely obvious in real life, but that's not the point. The point is: Do we know for sure where both Roger and Pauline stand on this statement? I don't think we do. Pauline said some environmentalists want to breach the dams, but that doesn't mean that those environmentalists have thought about the implications to power prices. Roger didn't even mention the environmentalists at all. This is out.

E. Pauline definitely didn't take a position on additional energy sources, so this is out.

B is our answer, because I'm most certain that both Pauline and Roger agree with it.

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

About me: I'm  the owner of Fox LSAT and FoxTestPrep.com. Please email me at fox.edit@gmail.com, call me at 415-518-0630, Tweet me @nfoxcheck out my books here, and watch 15 hours of free LSAT classes here.

Crowdsourcing the June 2013 LSAT:  June 2013 LSAT Explanation Central | About this project