PrepTest 107, Section 4, Question 1
Combustion of gasoline in automobile engines produces benzene,(36 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AThe engines of(12 more words not shown)
- BSeveral large research(10 more words not shown)
- CIn some regions,(17 more words not shown)
- DFormaldehyde is a(5 more words not shown)
- ESince methanol is(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Both fuels produce a carcinogen. Are the risks equally bad?
Start with gasoline. Burning it produces benzene, which can cause cancer. I'd want to know how much it produces and how dangerous that exposure is. Calling something a carcinogen doesn't by itself tell us the size of the risk.
The environmentalists propose methanol because it produces little benzene. That makes me ask what else methanol produces. The author has an answer: formaldehyde, another carcinogen. Fair enough—we should consider that downside. But why does it leave the proposal with little merit? What if benzene is far more dangerous? Replacing one risk with a smaller risk could still be an improvement.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to support the environmentalists' proposal, so take care whose side we're on. We want a reason to favor switching from gasoline to methanol. Showing that the gasoline-related carcinogen is worse than the methanol-related one would answer the concern we just raised.
Working the answers
- A
Some cars use a third fuel. That doesn't help us compare gasoline with methanol or establish a benefit of replacing one with the other. Diesel cars could continue to exist whether the proposed switch was a good idea or a bad one.
- B
Cleaner gasoline might someday provide another option. But these research efforts don't establish a reason to switch to methanol. They concern improving the fuel the environmentalists propose replacing, and we don't even know what the research will achieve.
- C
Depending economically on fuel production doesn't tell us what would happen if the fuel changed. The industries might adapt, benefit, or suffer. Nor does C compare the harms caused by burning gasoline and methanol. The mere existence of this economic dependence supplies no support for the proposed switch.
- DCorrect
Formaldehyde is less potent as a carcinogen than benzene. That gives us the comparison missing from the author's objection. Producing a carcinogen does not make methanol just as bad as gasoline if the carcinogen it produces is less potent.
D doesn't calculate every risk or prove methanol harmless. We could still ask about quantities and other effects. But it supplies a reason the switch could reduce harm, which supports the environmentalists' proposal despite the fact that both fuels produce carcinogens.
- E
This gives us a disadvantage of methanol: a spill would cause more environmental damage. That pushes against the switch. We're trying to support the environmentalists, so an additional problem with their proposed replacement goes in the wrong direction.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.