Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S3 · Q7 Studies indicate that the rate

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

Start practicing free

Studies indicate that the rate at which water pollution is increasing is leveling off: the amount of water pollution caused this year is almost identical to the amount caused last year.

Conclusion (prediction)

If this trend continues, the water pollution problem will no longer be getting more serious.

Evidence

Studies show the rate at which water pollution is increasing is leveling off: last year's water pollution amount is almost identical to the prior year's.

Evaluate

We never fight with the Trigger of a Conditional Conclusion, so we are playing along with this trend continuing.

Given that ... the amount of water pollution we have is now stabilized at the amount we had each of the last two years,

How can we say that ... the water pollution problem will still be getting more serious?

This argument is saying,

The environmentalist could say, adding to the bank account" of how much sewage is in the water."

Goal

Let's look for something that will help us argue that even though the rate of water pollution is stable, the amount of water pollution absorbed by the water is ever-increasing, so the "water pollution problem" could continue to worsen.

7.

The reasoning is questionable because it ignores the possibility that

  1. some types of water pollution

    No Impact

    We're trying to argue that the water pollution problem will become more serious, and this answer is talking about pollution being harmless to organisms. So this seems to be going the opposite direction of what we want.

    5% picked this

  2. the types of water pollution

    Strengthens

    If this answer had said that this year's pollution was more dangerous than last year's, it would weaken. We could argue, "Author, even though it's the same amount of pollution each year, the toxicity of the pollution is getting worse each year, and so the water pollution problem will be getting more serious." But if we're told that this year's pollution is equally or less dangerous than last year's, it strengthens.

    5% picked this

  3. the leveling-off trend of water

    Attacks the Trigger

    This does not disagree with the author, because the author never said or implied that the leveling-off trend would continue. She just said, "if this trend continues". I can say, "If a dog were elected president, the partisan media would still find ways to politicize the dog's actions." That doesn't mean I think a dog will be elected president. You can only argue with me by contesting the 2nd half. You'd have to say, "Not so -- in this hypothetical world of President Pups, the media would find it so adorable that it would unify our partisan divides." When an argument has a conditional conclusion, we can never strengthen the argument by making the trigger sound more likely nor can we weaken the argument by making the trigger sound less likely. We accept the trigger. It's like one more premise, one more background constraint.

    15% picked this

  4. air and soil pollution are

    Out of Scope: air / soil

    This conclusion is only about water pollution.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    the effects of water pollution

    Why this is right

    This allows us to say that even though we're adding the same amount of pollution each year, the pollution problem will be getting more serious. Can you say to your friends, "Relax, I'm not getting any more drunk. I had as many shots last hour as I had the previous hour. So if this trend of three shots per hour continues, then my drunkeness will not get any more serious"? Of course not, because all that alcohol adds up; it's cumulative. Yes, your liver will eventually process the alcohol away (much like ecological habitats can slowly detoxify over time). But if you're already at a problematic state (if you're already drunk / if you already have a water pollution problem), and you keep adding more to the problem, you're making the problem worse.

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

    75% 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