Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S4 · Q9 Many airlines offer, for a fee

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

Many airlines offer, for a fee, to "offset" the carbon emissions produced when you fly, but such schemes are almost entirely ineffective.

Conclusion

The schemes where a customer pays a fee to "offset" carbon emissions are almost entirely ineffective.

Intermediate Conclusion (so)

No carbon emissions are prevented.

Evidence

The fees get invested in projects that, even though they do reduce carbon emissions, would have happened even without that investment.

Evaluate

The buzzword for the main conclusion is "ineffective". Why are these carbon emissions schemes ineffective? Because they're not preventing carbon emissions.

So maybe the answer will say, But since that seems like a pretty reasonable move, maybe they're actually wanting us to think about the move from premise to intermediate conclusion.

The fees people are paying aren't crucial to the projects that receive the fees. Those projects, which do reduce carbon emissions, would have happened even if airline customers hadn't paid a fee to "offset" the carbon emissions of their flight. The fee isn't making a difference, so the author thinks that the fee isn't really preventing any carbon emissions.

That seems like a bigger, weirder move. Maybe the fee money wasn't crucial for the project to run (in an absolute sense) but it was still helpful in that it increased the project's ability to do its job (relative).

Goal

Since the typical form of a correct answer on Strengthen-Principle is "If Evidence, then Conclusion", let's look for something like

If these projects would have then your fee still operated even without → didn't prevent your fee / donation any emissions

Or for something like,

if you fee didn't → then the offset fee is prevent any emissions an ineffective scheme

9.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?

  1. Steps that are taken in

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This principle is set up to prove "you're not absolved from the harm you caused". We're looking to prove "this scheme is ineffective" or "no emissions are prevented".

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    If an outcome would have

    Why this is right

    This is testing the move from Premise to Intermediate Conclusion, using general language. It matches up semi-well with our prediction: If these projects would have then your fee still operated even without → didn't prevent your fee / donation any emissions if an outcome would have then the outcome occurred even in absence → wasn't because of your certain action of your action The intermediate conclusion is that "no carbon emissions are prevented (by these fees)". The right side of this answer choice is saying "the outcome where these projects reduce carbon emissions reductions would have occurred in the absence of your fee going into their budget. Therefore, the emissions reductions those projects achieve are not a consequence of your fee. Ultimately, getting this question right hinges a lot on noticing the lowercase Conclusion indicator "so" before that final claim. If we don't realize there's an Intermediate Conclusion that the correct answer could be working off of, it'll be harder to match this up.

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

    90% picked this

  3. If a company or individual

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This principle is set up to prove "you should not be considered morally praiseworthy." We're looking to prove "this scheme is ineffective" or "no emissions are prevented".

    1% picked this

  4. Measures aimed at achieving a

    Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match

    This answer would work if the argument had sounded like this: Fees people pay to offset the CO2 when they fly have not been demonstrated to be effective at achieving that outcome. Therefore, people should not pay those fees. In this argument above, the concept of "these fees are ineffective" is a premise. But in the real argument, "these schemes are ineffective" was the main conclusion. There isn't a conclusion that says, "you should not pay these fees". The two explicit conclusions, whose language we should be oriented around finding, are "this fee is ineffective" or "no carbon emissions are prevented (by this fee)".

    7% picked this

  5. If a project for reducing

    Bad Evidence Match Weak Conclusion Match

    This principle has the power to support a conclusion that sounds like "these projects are of limited value in reducing carbon emissions". Does that match either of the two conclusions in the argument? Not really. The main conclusion was "these schemes are of limited value in terms of reducing carbon emissions" and the intermediate conclusion was "these projects would have operated even without airline passengers' fees". More incriminatingly, the evidence half of this answer is way off. The premise never talked about these projects "not tackling the largest source of carbon emissions". That doesn't match anything in the argument.

    1% 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