Carbon Tax

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

TopicsAuthor OpinionSociety

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

Free to start

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

Author Opinion

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

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

The question

20.

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

Answer choices

Out of Scope: other countries harmed10% picked this
not act unilaterally because, although that country would receive some benefits from such action, other countries would most
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"
10%
Contradicted3% picked this
not act unilaterally because unilateral action would have no benefits for
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%
Correct77% picked this
not act unilaterally because the cost to that country would not be justified by the limited effect that such action would
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%
Opposite5% picked this
act unilaterally because that country’s economy would benefit from the resulting reduction in
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%
Opposite5% picked this
act unilaterally because other countries might well be inspired to follow
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%

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