Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S4 · Q6 Scientist: There is a lot of

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

Scientist: There is a lot of concern that human behavior may be responsible for large-scale climate change.

Conclusion (should = opinion)

The fact that human behavior may be responsible for large-scale climate change should be seen more as an opportunity than as a problem.

Evidence

If human behavior is responsible for climate change, then we can control future climate change to make it less extreme than previous climate shifts.

Evaluate

We could spell out a missing Link, such as .

But because this argument is very real-world, it's more likely to have an answer that is dealing with Objections than with Links.

How could we object to this argument and say, ?

- first of all, we are responsible for climate change but that doesn't mean we know how to reverse it. Sally might be responsible for spilling that milk; that doesn't mean that the can control future spills.

- even if we do have the power to make climate change less extreme than previous climate shifts, couldn't it still be problematic? (Some previous climate shifts have led to mass extinctions in which Earth loses 75% or more of its species --- if we make future climate change less extreme and only lose 40% of Earth's species, isn't that still a problem?)

Goal

Let's look for an answer that sounds like something the author would need to believe in order to be optimistic about our ability to steer future climate change into a non-problematic direction.

Or look for an answer that, when negated, weakens. The negation should allow us to argue that climate change should be seen as a problem.

6.

The scientist's argument requires assuming which one of the following?

  1. The same degree of climate

    Irrelevant Comparison

    The author's argument doesn't need to assume, for instance, that 2 degrees of warming is less damaging when it's caused by humans than when it's caused by natural causes. She'd be fine believing that 2 degrees of warming does the same damage regardless of the source. So this asymmetric comparison is not needed for her argument.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    Human beings can control the

    Why this is right

    We're attracted to weaker language and to ruling-out language on Necessary Assumption, so the softness of "can" is inviting. If we negate this, does it hurt the argument? Human beings cannot control the aspects of their behavior that have an impact on climate change. Yes, that definitely hurts the argument. The author is selling us on the idea that humans will be able to control future climate change. How can we make climate change less extreme if we can't actually stop ourselves from having this warming effect on the climate? (Some of us may be thinking, "I get how the negation weakens, but isn't it weakening by basically refuting a premise?" Yes, pretty much. A lot of students are under the impression that you can never attack a premise, but there's no such rule. It's just incredibly, incredibly rare, so LSAT teachers and learning materials tell you that you should be accepting the evidence while finding a way to disagree with the conclusion. But every now and then, about 5 times ever, you'll see a problem seem to take issue with a premise. In all those cases, the premise sounds like a very dubious opinion, such as this prediction that we can control future climate change.)

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

    93% picked this

  3. At least some previous large-scale

    Out of Scope: previous changes

    The author says "If we are responsible for climate change", so she hasn't committed to the idea that we are responsible for climate change. This argument is also only about the current large-scale climate change that is possibly being caused by human behavior, and it's about future climate changes that humans will supposedly be able to mitigate. Nothing in the argument cares about whether previous climate changes have been caused by humans.

    4% picked this

  4. Large-scale climate change poses a

    Irrelevant Comparison: greater danger

    The argument isn't ever ranking how dangerous climate change is to different entities, so the author hasn't committed herself to the comparison this answer is offering.

    0% picked this

  5. It is easier to identify

    Irrelevant Comparison: easier to identify

    The argument isn't ever discussing how hard / easy it is to diagnose a cause of the climate change problem or how hard / easy it is to come up with a solution to change those behaviors. So the author hasn't committed herself to any comparison between the ease of finding which of our behaviors are causing climate change vs. the ease of changing those behaviors. It doesn't matter to the author whether one is harder than the other or whether they're similarly challenging.

    0% 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