Scientist: There is a lot of

Answer choices

1. A

   Irrelevant Comparison2% picked this

   The same degree of climate change produces less damage if it is caused by human behavior than if it

   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%
2. B

   Correct93% picked this

   Human beings can control the aspects of their behavior that have an impact

   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%
3. C

   Out of Scope: previous changes4% picked this

   At least some previous large-scale climate changes have been caused by

   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%
4. D

   Irrelevant Comparison: greater danger0% picked this

   Large-scale climate change poses a greater danger to human beings than

   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%
5. E

   Irrelevant Comparison: easier to identify0% picked this

   It is easier to identify the human behaviors that cause climate change than it is

   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%