PrepTest 105, Section 4, Question 9
To allay public concern about chemicals that are(47 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(19 more words not shown)
- AWhen pharmaceutical substances(22 more words not shown)
- BLeakage from the(12 more words not shown)
- CBefore the federal(21 more words not shown)
- DThe concentration of(19 more words not shown)
- EThe water in(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Testing a chemical before selling it doesn't automatically reassure me about that chemical leaking into a river. What did the test examine? Could the chemical be acceptable in its intended use and still cause problems for the water or the fish?
The representative wants to "allay" public concern, meaning to reduce it. The reassurance rests on a legal requirement to test new chemicals for safety, compared with the requirement for pharmaceuticals. But naming a testing requirement doesn't establish that the testing answers the public's concern about this leak.
My first prediction for a weakener would be a mismatch between the testing and the situation. Perhaps testing in small quantities doesn't establish what happens when much more enters a river. We need a reason the representative's assurance fails to cover the risk people are worried about.
What we’re looking for
That's a direction to investigate, not a new fact about the tests. The question asks for the fact that most seriously weakens the implied argument that the public needn't worry.
Working the answers
- A
A delay in getting potentially lifesaving drugs onto the market could be a cost of testing. But that doesn't show whether the chemicals leaking from this dump are dangerous. The representative's analogy mentions pharmaceuticals; that doesn't make every fact about pharmaceutical regulation relevant to the river.
- B
The leak's recent appearance doesn't tell us how old the chemicals are or whether the testing requirement covered them. An old dump could start leaking only recently. By itself, B gives no reason the safety assurance is either adequate or inadequate.
- CCorrect
This finds a different gap from my prediction: the law is recent, but the dump is long-established. Dangerous chemicals manufactured before the testing requirement could already be in it. A rule covering new chemicals wouldn't resolve that concern.
Imagine a dump used for fifty years and a testing rule introduced five years ago. That rule doesn't establish the safety of material deposited during the preceding forty-five years. Those numbers are just an illustration of the timing problem.
C doesn't prove which chemicals are in this dump or that the leak has caused harm. It shows why pointing to the new rule is not enough to dismiss concern about an old dump.
- D
Dilution lowers the concentration, which could make exposure less concerning. It doesn't show a new danger or a gap in testing that would weaken the reassurance. We also shouldn't conclude that dilution necessarily makes the leak harmless; D gives no safe concentration threshold.
- E
Silt from construction explains why the water looks murky. But its appearance doesn't tell us whether the leaking chemicals pose a danger. A river could look murky because of silt and still contain dangerous chemicals, or look clear and contain them. E doesn't test the representative's assurance.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.