PrepTest 107, Section 3, Question 13
Charles: During recessions unemployment typically rises.(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AIt calls into(13 more words not shown)
- BIt makes an(12 more words not shown)
- CIt presents an(13 more words not shown)
- DIt argues that(15 more words not shown)
- EIt presents an(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Fewer trips to work could mean less pollution. But work isn't the only place people drive. What if someone who loses a job takes a road trip with the newly available time? That is a possibility to consider, not a prediction that everyone will do it. It shows why fewer commutes don't automatically settle overall car use.
Darla raises a different concern. Even if people drive less, what cars are they driving? During a recession, people may be unable to replace their older cars, and the passage tells us older cars tend to emit more pollutants. Less driving and more pollution per amount of driving can push in opposite directions.
That doesn't mean Darla has proved Charles wrong. Perhaps the decline in driving is large enough to outweigh the dirtier exhaust from older cars. We haven't been given the comparison needed to decide. What Darla has shown is that Charles leaves something relevant out when moving from reduced commuting to reduced pollution.
What we’re looking for
The question asks how her response relates to his argument. Look for a new consideration that weakens his support. She does not need to deny his facts or establish that pollution definitely increases.
Working the answers
- A
Darla doesn't deny that unemployment rises or that fewer people commute to jobs. She can accept those facts and still ask what happens to the cars people continue to use. Her response challenges the move to lower pollution by adding a consideration, rather than calling Charles's starting facts false.
- B
The first part fits: Darla adds a claim. But “only if Charles's conclusion is false” goes too far. Older cars could emit more while total pollution still fell because people drove much less. Darla's claim can coexist with Charles's conclusion, even though it makes his evidence less decisive.
- CCorrect
Darla adds the effect of keeping older cars, which weakens the support for Charles's forecast. His evidence concerns less use of cars; her evidence concerns how much pollution the cars tend to produce as they age.
That second factor matters to the result he predicts. Until the competing effects are considered together, reduced commuting alone gives a less convincing basis for concluding that automobile pollution falls.
- D
Darla doesn't endorse Charles's conclusion and offer a better explanation for it. Her opening question challenges whether we should accept the prediction of reduced pollution at all. She gives us a reason for caution, not an alternative argument proving the same result.
- E
Darla doesn't take Charles's premises and show that they lead to an absurd result. She brings in an additional fact about replacing cars. A response such as “Then everyone should lose their jobs to solve pollution” would be a different kind of challenge. Darla makes no such move.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.