Logical Reasoning

PT158 · S4 · Q17 Mateo: Global warming has caused

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

Mateo: Global warming has caused permafrost to melt under several arctic villages, forcing all their inhabitants to relocate at great expense.

Evidence (since)

Global warming has caused permafrost to melt under several arctic villages, forcing all their inhabitants to relocate at great expense.

Pollution from automobiles is a major contributor to global warming.

Conclusion (should)

The automotive industry should be required to help pay for the villagers' relocation.

Evaluate

The argument gives us evidence about automobiles contributing to a problem, then jumps to a conclusion claiming that the automobile industry should be required to help pay for that problem. This is an incredibly common pattern in Principle Strengthen questions. Regardless of whether or not that recommendation sounds reasonable, logically there is an important missing link in the argument.

For the argument to be valid, we need a premise to actually state that, if pollution from automobiles is a major cause of the village inhabitants needing to relocate, then the automotive industry should be required to help pay for the relocation.

autos are a cause → auto industry should pay

Goal

We're looking for an answer to make this missing connection. Since the correct answer only needs to strengthen the argument, it doesn't have to be a precise match for the assumption that we identified, but frequently it will be, so this a great question type to hone your prediction skills. Beware of answers that address a slightly different recommendation, make a recommendation for a different party, or reverse the logic. Eliminate any answer that has "auto industry should pay" as the sufficient condition.

17.

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

  1. Any industry has an obligation

    Bad Evidence Match

    This principle requires that the damage be something the industry "should have known" would result from its product. But Mateo's argument never establishes — and does not need to establish — that the auto industry knew or should have foreseen this specific chain of consequences (pollution causes warming causes melting causes village relocation). Introducing a foreseeability or knowledge requirement creates a condition the argument's evidence does not satisfy. The auto industry could plausibly argue it did not foresee its products would melt permafrost beneath a distant village — and under this principle, they would escape liability. Mateo needs a strict causation-based principle with no escape hatches.

    4% picked this

  2. Manufacturers should be required to

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Mateo's conclusion is specific: the auto industry should help PAY for the villagers' relocation costs. This principle establishes only a duty to "minimize harm," which is considerably weaker. "Minimize harm" could be satisfied by reducing emissions, investing in cleaner technology, or providing partial assistance — none of which necessarily includes paying full relocation costs. The principle must lead to the specific conclusion stated in the argument. A principle that leads to a vaguer or weaker conclusion does not fully justify the argument. The gap between "minimize harm" and "help pay relocation costs" is significant.

    1% picked this

  3. When the use of a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This principle addresses government obligations, not industry liability. Mateo's conclusion is specifically that the automotive INDUSTRY should pay, not that the government should or shouldn't. Even if this principle established conditions under which the government should not foot the bill, that does not automatically shift the obligation to the auto industry. The argument needs a principle that directly creates a link between "your product caused damage" and "you should pay." This principle operates in a different sphere — government fiscal policy rather than industry liability — and cannot justify the specific conclusion about the auto industry's financial responsibility.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    Any industry manufacturing a product

    Why this is right

    This principle states that any industry whose product's use contributes to costly damage should be liable for those costs. Apply it to Mateo's facts: (1) The auto industry manufactures cars. (2) The use of cars produces pollution that contributes to global warming. (3) Global warming causes permafrost to melt, forcing villagers to relocate at great expense. (4) Therefore, the auto industry's product contributes to costly damage. (5) By this principle, the auto industry should be liable for the relocation costs. The principle maps perfectly onto the argument. No extra conditions are required — no foreseeability, no intent, no knowledge. Just a clean causal connection between product use and damage, combined with the obligation to pay. The conclusion follows with logical certainty once this principle is accepted. This is exactly the kind of tight principle-to-conclusion alignment that Justify questions demand.

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

    86% picked this

  5. An industry that contributes to

    Reversal / Creates Impossible Standard

    This principle says the auto industry should be required to pay for THIS specific damage ONLY IF there is already a general obligation for it to pay for ALL damage its products cause. This is backwards from what Mateo needs. He wants to establish liability for one specific case, but this principle requires first proving universal liability — a much harder and broader task. It creates a precondition (general obligation to all damage) that must be satisfied before the specific obligation (pay for relocation) kicks in. Since Mateo has not established such a sweeping general obligation, this principle actually blocks his conclusion rather than supporting it.

    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