Logical Reasoning

PT129 · S1 · Q13 Fossil-fuel producers say

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

Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to reduce levels of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels enough to halt global warming.

Conclusion

It’s probably possible for fossil-fuel producers to reduce emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels enough to halt global warming, without it being prohibitively expensive.

Evidence

Fossil fuel producers say it would be too expensive, but they said the same thing years ago about fixing the CFC problem. When they were forced to fix the CFC problem, they managed to do so in a timely and profitable fashion.

Evaluation

This argument relies on an analogy, so you strengthen it by making the two cases seem more fair to compare. You weaken it by making the two situations seem Importantly different.

Goal

It’s hard to predict what detail the correct answer will focus on, but need something that makes us more likely to believe .

13.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

  1. In the time since the

    Trap

    Too Weak / Out of Scope: "CO2 levels still increasing" Since the author wants to believe that there is a feasible solution to the CO2 problem that would actually halt global warming, it somewhat strengthens to learn that the solution to the CFC problem did actually halt ozone layer destruction. The second part of this answer about CO2 levels increasing is irrelevant. The fossil industry hasn't taken an action yet, so we wouldn't expect CO2 emissions to have changed. Ultimately, this is weaker than the correct answer.

    3% picked this

  2. In some countries, the amount

    Too Weak

    This somewhat strengthens the author’s case that a CO2 solution can be feasible. The downside, “at some cost in convenience”, is phrased very weakly so it’s not much of a downside. However, “reduced” could be very different from “reduced enough to halt global warming”. Ultimately, this is weaker than the correct answer.

    13% picked this

  3. The use of CFCs never

    Irrelevant Comparison: "contributed as greatly"

    This tries to compare the blameworthiness of CO2 and CFC’s in relation to the problems they influence. The author doesn’t really need that part of the analogy to line up. She just needs us to believe that just as a solution to the CFC problem was not really hopeless, a solution to the CO2 problem is not really hopeless.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    There are ways of reducing

    Why this is right

    This is a very strong idea that speaks directly to the intended similarity between the two cases: the author thinks that since the CFC problem was actually quite solvable, the CO2 problem is also probably quite solvable. This strongly corroborates that by saying “Yup, in fact it’s even easier to solve the CO2 problem than it was to solve the CFC problem”.

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

    61% picked this

  5. If international agreements forced fossil-fuel

    Out of Scope: "substitutes"

    The author is claiming that fossil fuel producers could reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuels enough to halt global warming, not that fossil fuel producers could find substitutes. The author’s case would be strengthened by a conditional that said, “If fossil fuel producers were forced to solve the CO2 problem, they would find a way”. However, the author isn’t relying on the international agreements part of the analogy. It wouldn’t change the argument if a national government forced fossil fuel producers to reduce emissions. The essential part of the analogy is that the problem is solvable, if push came to shove.

    20% 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