question 1741

[Hernandezm307]

Public safety expert: The anti-terrorist measures in place at airports can sometimes have comic results, but they are necessary. A passenger on a recent European flight was detained for several hours after a Faberge egg in her carry-on luggage was mistaken for a grenade. While several pundits decried this as a classic example of overzealous security, the woman admitted that the egg probably did resemble a grenade under the x-ray scanner. Isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?

Which of the following is mentioned as an opposing point to the main conclusion?

At least one security incident at an airport was a comic misunderstanding.


Can anyone explain the logic behind this one?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question, and not terribly easy either.

We're looking to find a point that runs counter to the argument's main conclusion, which is that anti-terrorist measures in place at airports are necessary.

Many of the claims in the argument serve to support this claim, but we're asked to find that may serve to undermine it. If at least one security incident was a comic misunderstanding, that would undermine the conclusion that the airport security measures in place are necessary. Sure, it doesn't disprove the conclusion. The argument concedes this point on it's way to arguing that the security measures are necessary. However, that some incidents involving such security measures are comic would be a counterpoint one could make in trying argue against the argument's conclusion.

Does that help clear this one up?