Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S2 · Q16 Environment minister: Many countries have signed

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

Environment minister: Many countries have signed an international agreement that is intended to reduce pollution in the world's oceans.

Conclusion (Therefore / should)

Our country should not sign the agreement.

Evidence

It would reduce economic growth in our country and others.

Evaluate

Principle-Justify answers come in a few different forms. The most common form is an "If / Then" linking idea, that gets us from Evidence to Conclusion.

Here, that would be

Sometimes the answer is phrased more as a rule-of-thumb that makes the premise sound like the most important consideration when doing whatever the conclusion is talking about.

Here, that would sound like

The third and most rare kind comes when the paragraph seems to be Weighing Tradeoffs, as this paragraph seems to be doing.

When it comes to signing this agreement, what are the pros and cons? pro - significantly reduces pollution in world's oceans con - reduces economic growth for us and others

We want an answer that tips the scales in the direction the author is leaning, like, .

Goal

Let's look for something that sounds like one of our three predictions. It will help us to argue,

16.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify the environment minister's argument?

  1. A country should not sign

    Bad Evidence Match

    This principle is designed to output the conclusion language we want, should not sign agreement, but it's only triggered if we know that this agreement is unlikely to achieve it stated goal of reducing pollution in the world's oceans. We were actually explicitly told that it is likely to achieve its stated goal, so this rule definitely would not apply to this situation.

    0% picked this

  2. Correct

    It is more important to

    Why this is right

    Ah, they went with the Weighing Tradeoffs style of answer. The advantage of signing the agreement would be reducing pollution in the oceans. The downside would be a reduction in economic growth. What to do, what to do? According to this Principle, it's more important to avoid reducing growth, so that strengthens the conclusion that we should not sign the agreement.

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

    76% picked this

  3. A country should not sign

    Bad Evidence Match

    This principle is designed to output the conclusion language we want, should not sign agreement, but it's only triggered if we know that "there is likely a better means of achieving the stated goal of reducing pollution in the world's oceans". Nothing in the argument mentioned a better means (or any alternative means) of achieving a reduction in ocean pollution.

    1% picked this

  4. When deciding whether to sign

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The author definitely seems to be following this Principle, when it comes to her premise. After all, her premise is considering the effect this agreement would have on her nation's economy as well as other countries' economies. But this rule doesn't offer any guidance as to whether or not the author's nation should / shouldn't sign the agreement. It only goes as far as, "You should consider factor X." Cool, we considered it. We also considered the possible benefit of signing the agreement. They go in different directions. So, now what should we do? This rule doesn't nudge us in either direction.

    19% picked this

  5. If a policy is likely

    Opposite Logic

    This argument was saying, If .... Then .... this policy (that is likely to our govt should protect the environment) is ? not implement likely to reduce econ growth that policy

    4% 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