Logical Reasoning

PT139 · S1 · Q4 Chemical-company employee

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

Chemical-company employee: A conservation group's study of the pollutants released into the environment by 30 small chemical companies reveals that our company and four other companies together account for 60 percent of the total.

Conclusion (Clearly)

Our company releases more pollutants than most chemical companies similar to us in size.

Evidence

According to a study of 30 small chemical companies, our company and four other companies together account for 60% of the total pollutants.

Evaluate

There are two separate issues we should think through:

1. Does the evidence show that this company releases more pollutants than do most chemical companies in the study?

2. If so, it is fair to extrapolate from this study to "most chemical companies of a similar size"?

When it comes to #1, Given that ... our company and four others together account for 60% of the pollutants released by the 30 companies in the study (the other 25 companies combine to account for 40% of the pollutants),

How could we still argue that ... our company does not release more pollutants than do most chemical companies in the study?

Let's say that 100 tons of pollutants were released. And here's the list of who did what: Company A -- 25 tons Company B -- 20 tons Company C -- 15 tons Company D -- 8.9 tons Company E -- 1.1 tons Company F -- 1 ton Company G -- 1 ton Company H -- 1 ton etc.

Suppose that our company is Company E. If we add up our company with companies A thru D, then we'll get 60 out of the 100 tons of pollutants, or 60%.

But does that mean that Company E releases more pollutants than most companies our size?

No, it might be that the Top 4 are polluting juggernauts and we are very ordinary.

It's like if you were thrown on an NBA All-Star Team. You and the other four players on your team would collectively score 150 points, but that doesn't mean that you contributed your 30 point share. Maybe the rest of your teammates all had around 40 points and you had 1 or 2 points.

This argument is saying that . Thus, each of those five companies accounts for more pollutants than most companies. It's almost like a Whole to Part flaw, where the author fails to consider that the five companies might contribute very unevenly to that total.

Goal

We either want an answer that rules out the possibility that the other four companies are responsible for like 59% of that 60% and we're just contributing around 1%.

Or we want an answer relating to the sampling move from .

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the employee's argument?

The conservation group that produced
Out of Scope: hostile
The author is certainly assuming that this data is trustworthy, but that doesn't mean that she has to assume that the environmental conservation group behind the study is not hostile towards the chemical industry. If they are hostile, that doesn't weaken the argument. They can still conduct an accurate study, even while being not a fan of the chemical industry.
1% picked this
The employee's company does not
Weakens
This answer weakens, so it can't be right. If we negated this, we'd be saying "this company does produce chemicals whose processing naturally produces more pollutants". That would strengthen the argument that this company releases more pollutants than most chemical companies this size.
4% picked this
The total pollution produced by
Out of Scope: large companies
This evidence (the study) and the conclusion are exclusively about small chemical companies. So there aren't any assumptions being made about what large chemical companies do or about how they compare.
5% picked this
Correct
The four other companies mentioned
Why this is right
Like all the other answer choices here, this has the lovable "not" look of a Defender answer, so our primary move is to negate it by removing the "not" and seeing if it weakens. If we say that ,"The four other companies do together account for very close to 60% of the total pollution by the 30 companies", that weakens. If the other four companies add up to 59% and then our company contributes 1%, then it doesn't sound like our company releases that much pollution. The argument never said that our company was the 5th highest when it came to pollutants. We might be the least-polluting of the 30. It would still be true that "our company and four other companies together account for 60%". I could say that "me and Obama and Bush and Clinton together account for 6 terms as President". That doesn't mean that I served any terms as President.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
81% picked this
There is no significant variation
Too Strong: no big variation
If we negate this and say, "there is significant variation in the quantities of pollution released by the other 25 companies" does that weaken? No. If there were no variation, then those 25 companies that collectively contribute 40% of the pollutants would each be contributing 1.6% of the pollutants. If there's a lot of variation, then maybe some of them contribute 10% and others contribute 0.1%. It doesn't add up to any objection to the argument. It will still be true that these 25 companies account for only 40% of the total pollutants, whereas we and four other companies account for the other 60%. So the author's idea that we are worse than most companies when it comes to pollutants still makes plenty of sense.
9% 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