Scientists hoping to understand and

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct68% picked this

   treats as similar two cases that are different in a

   Why this is right

   The author treats the the damage done by the spacecraft and that done by the average factory as similar, but they are different in a critical respect: The damage done by the spacecraft is a means to an end that would ultimately reverse damage to the ozone layer. The damage done by an average factory has no such noble end. This is a good example of one of those correct answers on Flaw that really doesn't say much in the answer choice. If we don't already have this objection LSAC is testing in our heads, it will be hard for these answer choices to put that idea there, because they're written so vaguely. This answer is a generic objection that would apply to most arguments by Comparison.

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

   68%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match Not Sampling7% picked this

   justifies a generalization on the basis of a

   This answer describes the famous Sampling flaw, in which an author's argument relies on a sample that is too small, unrepresentative, or self-selecting. Is this conclusion a generalization? Nope. It's a specific claim that the single trip by the scientists' spacecraft was unjustifiable.

   7%
3. C

   Out Of Scope: Goal21% picked this

   fails to distinguish the goal of reversing harmful effects from the goal of preventing

   This is a very tempting answer choice, since the environmentalists seems worried about preventing the harmful effects of pollution, whereas we're thinking, "C'mon, man, those scientists are trying to reverse the harmful effects of pollution". But when an answer choice is saying the author confuses X with Y, it's saying that the author went from talking about one thing in the premise to a different thing in the conclusion, and didn't acknowledge the switch. Did the environmentalists go from saying that the goal of the spacecraft was to reverse harmful effects to acting like the goal of the spacecraft was to prevent harmful effects? No, the environmentalists (whose argument we're judging) didn't mention the goal of this spacecraft at all. The paragraph mentions the goal as background information, but the environmentalists' reasoning is contained entirely in the final sentence. If fact, our primary objection to them is, "Aren't you failing to acknowledge the goal of the spacecraft's trip, which is what would make the damage it caused justifiable?"

   21%
4. D

   Quantities Are Comparable3% picked this

   attempts to compare two quantities that are not comparable in

   Our objection here isn't that you can't compare the quantity of pollution from the factory to the quantity of the pollution from the spacecraft. You can definitely quantify emissions and ozone damage and consider them comparable. Our objection is that you shouldn't only compare these two situations based on quantity of pollution, because the purpose of the pollution also matters to our evaluation.

   3%
5. E

   Too Strong: Always1% picked this

   presupposes that experiments always do harm to

   This author definitely did not need to assume that 100% of experiments do harm to their subjects.

   1%