Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S2 · Q16 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.

Environmentalist's Conclusion

The national government must regulate industry safety standards, or at a minimum at least require oil companies to put double hulls on their tankers and to assume financial responsibility for accidents.

Environmentalist's Evidence (since)

There have been damaging spills from the oil industry, and the oil industry refuses to take action.

Industry Rep's Conclusion

The industry alone should be responsible for devising safety standards.

Industry Rep's Evidence (because)

The industry has expertise in handling oil and understands the cost entailed. The double-hull proposal is not feasible, because it creates new safety issues, and the cost would be burdensome to the industry and to consumers.

Evaluate

We need an answer that helps out the industry rep, so we want to reinforce ideas like, - the government should not be the one to set safety standards / industry should - industry knows more about this stuff - the double-hull solution is not a feasible solution (too costly to industry and consumers, and creates safety issues)

Goal

The correct answer is hard to predict here, so let's just look for something that the industry rep could say to add on to her argument or to better shoot down something that the environmentalist said.

16.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the industry representative’s position against the environmentalist’s position?

  1. Recently a double-hulled tanker loaded

    Weakens, if anything

    This tells us about a double-hulled tanker that ran aground but didn't spill oil. That sounds like a victory for the environmentalist, who wants to mandate double-hulls.

    1% picked this

  2. Proposed government regulation would mandate

    No Impact

    This answer is telling us about what would happen if we followed the environmentalist's recommendation, and it all sounds pretty neutral, if not positive.

    2% picked this

  3. Proposed legislation requires that new

    No Impact

    This tells us that proposed legislation would already be partially in agreement with the environmentalist's recommendation. The recommendation is for the government to mandate double-hulls on all tankers, whereas this legislation only requires it on new tankers. But that really has no effect on the conversation. If I'm trying to argue that we should have a $15 minimum wage, and you say that "there is legislation currently proposed to raise the minimum wage to $12", that doesn't strengthen or weaken my claim.

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    Fumes can become trapped between

    Why this is right

    This reinforces something the industry rep was saying and helps make the double-hull idea sound like a potentially bad plan. The rep told us that double hulls create new safety issues. This answer tells us about one such safety issue, and it actually carries a risk of rupturing the tanker's hull, which would lead to a big oil spill. So this answer strengthens the industry rep's rebuttal to the environmentalist's recommendation by showing how the recommendation could backfire and lead to more of the problem (oil spills) that the recommendation is designed to prevent.

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

    91% picked this

  5. From now on, the oil

    No Impact

    Like (C), this answer is saying that the government is planning to do / already doing something that fits into part of what the environmentalist is recommending. She wanted oil companies to assume financial responsibility for accidents, and it sounds like they are going to be forced to financially contribute to an oil-spill cleanup fund.

    3% picked this

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