Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S2 · Q17 Using fossil energy more efficiently

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Using fossil energy more efficiently is in the interest of the nation and the global environment, but major improvements are unlikely unless proposed government standards are implemented to eliminate products or practices that are among the least efficient in their class.

Claim

Major improvements in the efficiency with which we use fossil energy (which would be in the interest of both nations and the world) are unlikely unless governments implement rules that eliminate products ranked least efficient in their class.

Objection

Let's leave energy decisions to the market

Evaluate

If we're trying to undermine this objection, we should be thinking of ways to argue that .

Maybe the market incentives run contrary to those of using fossil energy more efficiently. The author would love for the least efficient products or practices to be eliminated.

The Objection is suggesting that the market will naturally take care of that (free market believers think that the free markets and the struggle to obtain competitive advantage result in companies solving for greater efficiencies).

But it might be that a company finds it's more economically efficient to keep its fleet of gas-guzzling trucks and pay some environmental fine for doing so, then it would be to scrap that fleet and buy an all new electric or gas powered fleet.

Goal

We essentially want an answer to help us argue,

17.

Which one of the following, if true, most directly undermines the objection above?

  1. It would be unrealistic to

    Too Weak

    Our common sense already tells us it's unrealistic to expect society to make all required changes to achieve maximum energy efficiency all at once. But that's a Straw Man. No one is arguing that society can make all changes for max efficiency simultaneously. Pointing out that this is impossible has no impact because it's not an idea anyone would have taken seriously in the first place.

    15% picked this

  2. There are products, such as

    Strengthens

    This conversation was about whether or not governments should institute regulations that eliminate the most inefficient products/practices, or whether we should leave that to the market. This answer is about whether or not consumers would notice that a product has comparative energy inefficiencies. If you're a believer in markets and you're relying on consumers to "regulate" away the least efficient products by refusing to buy them, it's a necessary assumption that consumers would even be able to realize that they're using an inefficient product. So by affirming a necessary assumption of market believers, this answer is strengthening the position of the Objection.

    5% picked this

  3. Whenever a new mode of

    Too Weak

    One might take this answer and run with it by saying, "The market is not going to solve these energy efficiency problems on its own. After all, it's very risky and cost-intensive to innovate a new mode of generating energy because you have to build some infrastructure too." But, the Objection isn't saying that "the market will innovate new modes of generating energy", it seems to just be implying that "the market will take care of the problem of eliminating the least efficient products/practices in their class." If there's class of products like "gas/electric hybrid automobiles", the original position wants the government to impose standards that eliminate the least efficient gas/electric hybrid on the market. The Objection wants the market to take care of eliminating those worst hybrids. It hasn't claimed that the market will generate new modes of generating energy.

    14% picked this

  4. When energy prices rise, consumers

    Strengthens

    This is showing how market dynamics can result in consumers performing better efficiency with fossil energy usage, so it strengthens the position of the Objectors, who are saying, "Let's let the market take care of it".

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    Often the purchaser of a

    Why this is right

    This is showing a problem with the market model of solving inefficiencies. If you're buying a car, you might be willing to spend $30k on a Prius rather than $22k on a Corolla, because the Prius gets 50 miles per gallon and the Corolla only gets 32 mpg. You're spending more money up front because you're calculating that you're going to save enough money on using less gas over the lifetime of that car that it's worth the extra up-front investment. The same goes for washing machines and refrigerators. If you're buying one for the house you live in, you might buy the energy-efficient model. It's pricier, but over the long haul you make that extra money back with lower gas and electric bills (while 'accidentally' helping out the environment). The landlord, meanwhile, has no such incentive. Since they only pay the up-front cost and the tenants are paying the utility bills, the landlord has no economic incentive to buy the pricier, energy-efficient model. On a side note, check out how LSAT recycles ideas. (it's from test 151, though, so don't look if you don't want to spoil that one)

    Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    62% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free