Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S3 · Q2 The process by which nylon

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

The process by which nylon is manufactured releases large amounts of the gas nitrous oxide, which is harmful to the environment.

Conclusion

There would be less environmental damage if cotton fiber rather than nylon were used to make products like thread and rope.

Evidence (since)

The process by which nylon is manufactured releases large amounts of nitrous oxide, which is harmful to the environment.

The processing of cotton fiber does not release environmentally harmful gases.

Evaluate

This argument is a straightforward comparison of environmental impacts between nylon and cotton fiber. The author suggests that switching from nylon to cotton fiber would lead to less environmental damage.

To weaken this argument, we need to introduce a factor that counteracts the environmental benefit claimed, perhaps highlighting that the switch to cotton fiber might have its environmental drawbacks or other consequences that were not considered.

Goal

Let's find an answer that shows how using cotton fiber instead of nylon does not necessarily reduce overall environmental damage, or that it brings an alternative issue that the argument fails to consider.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

Even if the quantity of
No Impact
This is saying that even if we stopped using nylon and thus decreased the emission of nitrous oxide, there would still be environmental problems. Yes of course. We didn't think this would solve every environmental problem. The author is only saying we'll be better-off, not that we'll be 100% fixed. This choice might suggest a limitation of the switch, but it does not weaken the argument about the relative benefit of reducing nitrous oxide.
13% picked this
Even if only some of
Opposite Impact
Choice (B) suggests that switching only some products from nylon to cotton reduces environmental damage, which actually supports the idea that using cotton fiber is less damaging environmentally. This does not weaken the argument; rather, it strengthens it.
2% picked this
Correct
If cotton fiber replaced nylon
Why this is right
This suggests that the intended reduction in nitrous oxide emissions might not occur or would be offset by increased nylon use elsewhere, thus negating the environmental benefit the argument claims. This choice effectively weakens the idea that switching to cotton fiber for thread and rope would lead overall to less environmental damage. There would be less damage coming from thread and rope production, but a commensurate increase of nylon use in other products, so we'd still get the environmental damage from nylon.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
83% picked this
If the quantity of nylon
Strengthens
This seems to say that if switch to cotton and use less nylon, we'll also get less of several pollutants that often come with producing nylon. That sounds better for the environment, so it strengthens.
1% picked this
If thread and rope continue
Irrelevant Comparison
Choice (E) deals with the production rate of cotton fiber and its impact, not the environmental consequences of using cotton versus nylon. The change in production speed does not inherently affect the environmental damage aspect and thus it does not weaken the comparison made regarding environmental damage.
2% 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