Logical Reasoning

PT125 · S2 · Q7 Environmentalist: The excessive atmospheric buildup

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

Environmentalist: The excessive atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide, which threatens the welfare of everyone in the world, can be stopped only by reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

Facts

We have to reduce burning of fossil fuels to stop CO2 problem. If a country enacted fossil fuel emission limitations, it would reduce its GNP. No nation is willing to be the only country who pays the price for a benefit that would help everyone. So, the only way we’re gonna stop the CO2 problem is if ....

Evaluation

There’s probably more than one way to solve this problem, but the solution that seems most embedded in what we were told is if . They’ll all see their GNP go down, but they’ll accept it knowing that other countries are sacrificing with them.

Goal

Something safely worded that sounds like more than one country will collectively agree to reduce emissions.

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

all nations become less concerned
Out Of Scope: “pollution” / Opposite
We need countries to care less about the economic burden (lower GNP) and more about the CO2 buildup (which is not really the same as pollution). So this answer is both opposite and drifting from the topic at hand by going from talking about a CO2 buildup to talking about pollution.
7% picked this
multinational corporations agree to voluntary
Out Of Scope: “multinational corporations”
This actually does seem like a possible solution. It loses out to choice C because it comes out of nowhere. Logical Completion is about pulling together the two strands of the conversation. This doesn’t combine the ideas of the 2nd and 3rd sentences.
12% picked this
Correct
international agreements produce industrial emission
Why this is right
Since no country wants to singlehandedly sacrifice its GNP in order to lower fossil fuel emissions (since doing do benefits everyone), we need multiple countries to agree to do it at the same time. This answer is better than B because this one addresses the tension cited that countries don’t want to embark on emission standards singlehandedly.
Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
77% picked this
distrust among nations is eliminated
Too Strong
Too Strong: “eliminated” / Out Of Scope: “distrust” The paragraph wasn’t saying that countries distrust each other. It was just pointing out the normal human nature idea of, “Why should *I* be the only one doing the work, if everyone is going to benefit?” Even if distrust were eliminated and all countries trusted each other, it would still be true that none of them would want to singlehandedly try to lower emissions in order to abate global CO2 buildup.
1% picked this
a world government is established
Too Strong: “establish a world government”
This is close to reinforcing the idea of, “We’re only gonna solve this problem if we work together”. But we don’t need a world government in order to work together. Choice C is a much more moderate suggestion of how countries work together. The idea that we need to create a world government in order to get multiple countries to reduce fossil fuels at the same time is too much of a reach, too exotic of a solution.
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