PrepTest 104, Section 1, Question 13
Problems caused by the leaching of pollutants from(86 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AWithin the next(18 more words not shown)
- BCountries surrounding Country(16 more words not shown)
- CIndustrial development in(9 more words not shown)
- DCountry X will(10 more words not shown)
- ENo other country(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why expect Country X to move beyond its current stage? It could stay at about $5,000 in annual output per person for years.
The general explanation makes sense as a possibility: early industrial growth creates more pollution, while later growth supplies resources to address it. That can explain why these particular pollution problems are worst in the middle range. Less industrial activity could mean fewer pollutants, and more resources could make cleanup easier. But “less severe” at either end doesn't mean no pollution at all.
The forecast for Country X needs something more. Its current position at $5,000 doesn't tell us that industrial development will continue over the next few years. And even if resources grow, I might still wonder whether the country will use them to address the problem. Having money available and choosing to spend it on cleanup aren't identical.
What we’re looking for
For the necessary-assumption question, my main prediction concerns the first gap: the development that supposedly brings improvement must actually continue within the forecast period. Otherwise, the general pattern gives no reason to expect Country X to enter the stage where the problem diminishes.
Working the answers
- A
Fines are one possible policy, not a required one. The country might improve landfill management or fund cleanup directly without imposing this particular system of penalties. The forecast doesn't depend on choosing fines as its method.
- B
Neighboring countries could keep releasing the same pollution while Country X reduced leaching from its own dumps and landfills. The argument's explanation concerns Country X's development and resources. It doesn't require a separate reduction in factory emissions elsewhere.
- CCorrect
The predicted improvement is tied to increasing industrial development generating adequate resources. To use that explanation to forecast improvement in Country X over the next few years, the argument needs development to increase during those years.
If development stagnates, the current output figure alone gives us no reason to expect this improvement. C doesn't guarantee that every other obstacle is resolved—for example, my concern about using the resources remains separate. But it supplies an assumption this particular explanation needs.
- D
Beginning industrialization isn't the same as continuing toward the later stage described. The argument treats Country X as currently in the range where the problems are worst and predicts movement toward improvement. It doesn't need the country to start industrializing for the first time. Nor does it require industrialization to be completely finished; the relevant point is further development.
- E
Country X doesn't have to be uniquely bad among similarly developed countries. Another country could have equally severe or worse pollution while X's own problem still improved. The argument predicts a change within X, not a ranking in which X must currently be the worst.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.