Reading Comprehension

PT17 · S4 · P3 · Q20 Carbon Tax

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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

One way governments can decrease air pollution is to impose a tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

Topic

The pros and cons of using a carbon tax to reduce industrial carbon dioxide emissions

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

A carbon tax could incentivize industries to reduce emissions and use cleaner fuels, but its effectiveness depends on key assumptions about economics and international cooperation, which may not hold up in practice. () — Paragraph 1, and concerns about cooperation and effectiveness are raised throughout.

P1: Introduction to Carbon Tax & Its Virtue

Why consider a carbon tax? The main benefit is that it motivates industry to cut emissions and switch to cleaner fuels, since dirtier fuels would get taxed more. It's an incentive-based approach compared to flat-out legislating against polluting fuels or investing in alternatives.

P2: Uncertainty in Setting the Tax & Predicting Effects

It's hard to know what the right tax level would be or how it would impact the economy and environment. Some estimates exist, but they rely on assumptions—ignoring economic effects, expecting future behavior to mimic the past, and assuming all countries play along.

P3: International Cooperation Difficulties ("Free Rider" Problem)

Getting all countries to cooperate on a carbon tax is tough. If some countries don't join in, they get a competitive edge (since they don't bear the costs), but still benefit environmentally from others' efforts—classic "free rider" problem.

20.

In response to the question, “Should countries act unilaterally to curb emissions?” (fourth paragraph), the author would be most likely to contend that a country should

not act unilaterally because, although
Out of Scope: other countries harmed
The author would say "don't act unilaterally, because other countries would benefit without having to do anything and possibly while even making the problem worse"
11% picked this
not act unilaterally because unilateral
Contradicted
Acting unilaterally would have benefits for other countries; that's why the author hates it. The 2nd sentence in that last paragraph says, "If a country acted unilaterally, the benefits would be spread across the globe (to other countries)".
3% picked this
Correct
not act unilaterally because the
Why this is right
This is the last and best of the three viable ones that correctly say our author would warn against acting unilaterally. The benefits would spread across the globe, whereas "the costs would fall solely on the country taking the unilateral action". And the other countries "would probably emit more CO2 than they would have if the unilateral action had not been taken". The final sentence of the passage tells us about "the limited effect" that unilateral action would have: the entire effect of the emission reduction may not be lost, but it would surely be diminished by this free-riding behavior.
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
77% picked this
act unilaterally because that country’s
Opposite
The fourth paragraph is warning about the dangers / bad strategy of acting unilaterally, so the author would not say that a country should act unilaterally. The passage also contradicts the unilateral actor's economy would benefit. It says "The benefits would spread across the globe, whereas the costs would fall solely on the country taking the action".
5% picked this
act unilaterally because other countries
Opposite
The fourth paragraph is warning about the dangers / bad strategy of acting unilaterally, so the author would not say that a country should act unilaterally. The author is pessimistic that other countries would be inspired to assist the global emissions effort by reducing their emissions too. The beginning of the 3rd paragraph says, "There are very strong reasons to believe that cooperation would be difficult to win."
5% 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