Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S2 · Q15 Environmentalist: An increased number of oil spills

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

Environmentalist: An increased number of oil spills and the consequent damage to the environment indicate the need for stricter safety standards for the oil industry.

Conclusion

The government has to at least require oil companies to put double hulls on their tankers and to assume financial responsibility for accidents.

Intermediate Conclusion

The national government needs to regulate industry safety standards.

Evidence

There have been an increased number of oil spills and consequent damage to the environment, and the oil industry refuses to take action.

Evaluate

The author defines a Problem and then proposes what he thinks is a mandatory Solution.

Typically with this form, there are two main assumptions - the Solution works (it's feasible / it doesn't backfire / it would address the issue) - there isn't any other Solution that would work at least as well

Goal

Look for an answer stating something we'd have to assume for the author's Solution to actually help when it comes to decreasing oil spills / environmental damage, or look for an answer ruling out any other possible way of dealing with this problem besides national government intervention.

15.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument of the environmentalist depends?

Correct
The only effective sources of
Why this is right
This answer affirms the move the author made from "Since industry won't do it, the national government must regulate". She assumed that those are the only two options. If we negate this answer, it would weaken the argument by responding, "You know ... there are other effective sources increasing the stringency of safety standards for oil tankers". That would blow up the author's sense of necessity: the national government must regulate the government has to require double hulls and financial liability
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
66% picked this
The requirement of two hulls
Out of Scope: save money
This environmentalist hasn't mentioned anything about money. There's no reason to say he's assuming that this requirement of double hulls will pay for itself. Even if it doesn't pay for itself, the environmentalist's argument would still say "I don't care that it eats into profits; you can't keep destroying the environment".
10% picked this
The oil industry’s aging fleet
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: aging fleet of tankers We never discussed whether the oil industry has any aging tankers. The author's conclusion has nothing to do with repairing or replacing anything. It just mandates putting a double hull on their tankers (maybe that means adding a 2nd to existing ones, which would not count as a 'repair').
1% picked this
Government safety regulations are developed
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: how regs are developed This argument doesn't speak at all about how regulations are developed, so we can't accuse the environmentalist of assuming anything specific about that process. Since he never said or assumed anything about how regulations would be developed, negating this answer couldn't weaken him.
5% picked this
Environmental concerns outweigh all financial
Too Strong
Too Strong: outweigh all Out of Scope: financial considerations The environmentalist's argument doesn't bring up financial considerations other than saying that the government should force the oil companies to assume financial responsibility for oil spills. This answer is incredibly broad -- it's not even limited to the oil industry. It's saying that this author assumes that in every single instance of developing safety standards, environmental concerns are #1. Our author only needs environmental concerns to be important when developing safety standards for oil tankers.
19% 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