Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S3 · Q19 Henry: Engines powered by electricity

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

Henry: Engines powered by electricity from batteries cause less pollution than internal combustion engines.

Umit's Objection

We shouldn't try to replace standard cars with electric cars, in order to reduce urban pollution.

Umit's Evidence

Electric cars have to be recharged a bunch, so if everyone started driving them it would create more demand for power plant electricity, which is a major source of pollution.

Evaluate

Given that switching to electric cars would create more demand for power plant electricity, which is a major source of pollution, How could we argue that replacing regular cars with electric cars would reduce urban pollution?

Well, there's a Comparison aspect to this argument: we realize that electric cars would still need energy and still cause pollution. We care about whether it would be less / same / more. Umit is just saying it would be major, but that doesn't help us compare.

So we could counter by saying,

But there's also a shift from pollution in the evidence to urban pollution in the conclusion. Maybe there's some way to counter where you say, , for some reason.

19.

Of the following, which one, if true, is the strongest counter Henry could make to Umit's objection?

  1. Correct

    Pollution caused by power plants

    Why this is right

    This allows us to counter that "Yes, there will be more power plant pollution in a world of electric cars, but there were still be less urban pollution than before ... ", since power plant pollution isn't urban pollution. It's confined to a small number of locations significantly far away from (urban areas). There are a lot of lovably strong modifiers in this answer to give it some punch.

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

    38% picked this

  2. The increased air pollution resulting

    No Impact

    We might be doubtful of this answer since it's specifically talking about air pollution, when the truth value of Henry's / Umit's conclusion hinges on whether there's a reduction in urban pollution. I'm not sure if a change in air pollution is necessarily a change in urban pollution (even though one would assume that air pollution affects everyone in both rural and urban areas). But perhaps the bigger problem with this answer is that it doesn't give us way to say, "Yes, there would be more power plant pollution in an electric car world, but there would still be less urban pollution." It sounds like we would have equal urban pollution. When we say that the increase was offset by the decrease, the net effect is equilibrium. When you're saying "the pros outweigh the cons", then you say "the deficits are more than offset by the advantages".

    46% picked this

  3. Electric motors could be restricted

    Too Weak

    This answer definitely finds a nice compromise between Henry's original position and Umit's objection, but the question stem wants the strongest counter. That essentially means, "Try to defend the original position", not "try to amend the original position to accommodate the 2nd person's objection". Henry was saying "replace regular cars with electric cars". Not replace some regular cars, just the small ones. And Umit's objection was about "widespread use" of electric cars. So saying, "okay, what if we restrict it to lightweight cars" is basically conceding that your opponent effectively rejected your original position.

    6% picked this

  4. Hybrid vehicles using both electric

    Out of Scope

    This feels like (C) in the sense of offering a compromise, rather than a logical counter. But hybrid vehicles are totally out of scope. These two are debating a proposition about whether replacing gas cars with electric cars would reduce urban pollution. Making that switch either would or wouldn't reduce urban pollution. The possible effects of hybrid vehicles are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of that proposition.

    2% picked this

  5. Most power plants are currently

    Doesn't Address Objection

    The objection wasn't about whether the power plants could handle the increased demand, it was about whether the increased demand would end up generating as least as much pollution as a world in which people drive gas cars.

    7% 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