Q19 - It is widely known that rescue squads

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Explain a Result

Stimulus Breakdown:
No argument here so we just need to get the facts straight: It's widely known that rescue squads save the lives of many climbers every year in high mountain areas with treacherous weather. Deaths and injuries are rising. Many experienced climbers believe that the only way to significantly reduce the volume of deaths and injuries is to abolish the rescue squads.

Answer Anticipation:
To prephrase Explain questions, start by articulating the paradox: How come abolishing the rescue squads is the only way to reduce the deaths, when the rescue squads save many lives every year? Well, maybe the squads give newbie climbers a false sense of security and they try routes they shouldn't.

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
(A) No duh it's hard to recruit and train members of high mountain rescue squads, but so what? That doesn't explain why abolishing them would save more lives than keeping them.

(B) Accurate recordings? Let the record show that this is irrelevant.

(C) C starts off strong: You could definitely craft a correct answer that begins "people who commonly take risks with their lives and health," but it goes awry when it brings in the expectation that other folks should do the same when rescuing them. So what if they don't expect it? That doesn't explain why the rescue teams are costing more lives than they're saving.

(D) Another strong start, but the fact that most people injured or killed weren't prepared doesn't address the different outcome predicted for the mountain with the rescue squads vs. the mountain without them.

(E) Here it is! A match to our prephrase. Some folks might get hung up on the "perception" issue, but notice that our first fact is that it is widely known that rescue squads save tons of climbers. If that's widely known, we can safely infer that this could lower the perceived risk of climbing those mountains.

Takeaway/Pattern:
The relationship between what is true and what is known to be true is something the LSAT likes to test on harder questions. Whenever you see a variation on the word "know" on the LSAT, take note! The most commonly-tested theme are "If something is known to be true, that establishes that it is true" and "Just because something is true, doesn't mean it's known to be true." Here we see a different variation on the theme: If something is known to be true, than some equivalent thing is also known to be true. Any way you slice it, "knowledge" will help you get to the right answer!

#officialexplanation