Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT17 S4 P3 Q18 Explanation

Carbon Tax

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsWeakenSociety

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

One way governments can decrease air pollution is to impose a tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. But why should governments consider a carbon tax when they could control emissions by establishing energy efficiency and conservation standards, by legislating against coal use, or by increasing investment in nuclear power? The great virtue fuels for those carrying a higher tax, and also to reduce the total use of energy.

However, it is not clear how high such a tax should be or what its economic and environmental implications would be. At first glance, it is not difficult to estimate roughly the size of the tax needed to effect a given level of emission reduction. One writer estimates, for example, that a also based on the assumption that all countries will behave cooperatively in imposing a carbon tax.

There are very strong reasons to believe that cooperation would be difficult to win. If most countries cooperated, then any country that chose not to cooperate would be advantaged: it would have no abatement costs, and the effect on the environment of its defection would be relatively small. Because needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions might prove elusive.

Should countries act unilaterally to curb emissions? If a country were to act unilaterally, the benefits would be spread across the globe, whereas the costs would fall solely on the country taking the action. The action would reduce emissions globally, and the effect of this would be to reduce the benefit other emission reduction may not be lost, but it would surely be diminished by this free-riding behavior.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
18.

Which one of the following circumstances would most seriously undermine the conclusion “Such a tax would induce industry to substitute less-polluting fuels for those carrying

Answer choices

  1. Correct82% picked this

    The fuel taxed at the highest rate costs considerably less to buy than fuels taxed

    Why this is right

    Answer A is correct.

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

  2. Trap2% picked this

    The goal set by the Toronto Conference cannot be reached unless each fuel is taxed at

  3. Trap6% picked this

    The tax on coal represents a much greater cost increase than does the tax on

  4. Trap6% picked this

    It is discovered that gas produces even less carbon dioxide per unit of energy generated

  5. Trap4% picked this

    It is discovered that coal produces even more carbon dioxide per unit of energy generated

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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