Logical Reasoning

PT123 · S2 · Q8 Proponents of the electric car maintain

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

Proponents of the electric car maintain that when the technical problems associated with its battery design are solved, such cars will be widely used and, because they are emission-free, will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions.

Opposing Point (proponents)

When the technical problems associated with its battery design are solved, electric cars will be widely used result in less environmental damage from auto emissions.

Evidence

Unless we dam more rivers, the electricity to charge these batteries will come from nuclear or coal-fired power plants. Each of these three power sources produces considerable environmental damage.

The Blank (thus = conclusion)

The electric car .

Evaluate

Since the argument has a rebuttal structure, "Proponents say X. But ... ", we would expect the conclusion to sound like a flipped version of the proponents' claim.

Is our author saying that electric cars won't be widely used? They won't result in less environment damage from auto emissions?

No, not quite either of those. She could potentially accept that lots of people drive electric cars. And she's not disputing that they are emission-free, or arguing that there will still be damage from auto emissions.

But she seems to be saying "there will still be environmental damage". Maybe it won't come from auto-emissions, but it will come from having to make more use of nuclear or coal-fired power plants.

Goal

Let's look for something with a rebuttal vibe, that is like

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

Correct
will have worse environmental consequences
Why this is right
This paraphrases the idea that the proponents of the electric car are wrong, while not going too far into how wrong the they are. It's technically not a great answer. The only environmental consequences we heard about proponents believing were that there would be less environmental damage from auto-emissions. The author doesn't dispute this, but just seems to be warning us that electric cars will still do environmental damage. The fact that this answer is phrased "worse consequences than proponents believe" is a sloppy fit. We're not entirely justified in picking that language, but it's our best available answer choice.
Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
53% picked this
will probably remain less popular
Out of Scope
Popularity is not discussed in the argument.
2% picked this
requires that purely technical problems
Unrelated to Goal
This is a very strong idea that is unrelated to our author saying, "Hey, electric cars are still going to cause considerable environmental damage". It doesn't sound like a conclusion built on the author's premises, which are the two claims after "But". Instead, it's taking the proponents Sufficient idea, "If technical problems solved, then electric car will succeed" and twisting it into a Necessary idea, "In order for electric car to succeed, the technical problems must be solved".
5% picked this
will increase the total level
Too Strong
This is assumes that the environmental degradation caused by producing the electricity to charge electric cars would be greater than the degradation caused by auto emissions. That's an even harder comparison to justify than is the comparison in (A). This answer would also imply (E). If the electric car increases emissions, then clearly the electric car did not produce a net reduction in environmental damage. Since (D) and (E) can't both be right, that would tell us that this answer is wrong.
5% picked this
will not produce a net
Too Strong
This assumes that the environmental degradation caused by producing the electricity to charge electric cars would be as much or more than the degradation caused by auto emissions. We can't quantify or compare whether the switch to electric cars would still be a net positive or a net negative. The author has merely said that getting the electricity to power these cars will cause considerable damage.
35% 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