PrepTest 109, Section 1, Question 18
The use of space-based satellites to study environmental(63 more words not shown)
The reasoning above most closely(8 more words not shown)
- APeople tend to(10 more words not shown)
- BA negative consequence(11 more words not shown)
- CTechnology usually has(14 more words not shown)
- DEven well-intentioned attempts(7 more words not shown)
- EAttempts to employ(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If environmentalists care about the environment, why would they overlook possible damage to the ozone layer?
The author thinks the satellites' usefulness explains it. They let environmentalists notice problems earlier and intervene before a crisis. Picture getting an earlier warning about a shrinking forest or melting ice. That is valuable to someone trying to protect the environment. But being pleased with that help could make the person less attentive to the possible harm from the spacecraft that provide it.
What we’re looking for
That is how I read “It is no wonder.” The author treats the benefit to environmentalists' work as a reason their failure to consider the downside is unsurprising. The question asks for a principle that fits that reasoning. I'd look for the idea that people overlook possible problems with something that helps their own activities.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The environmentalists' work benefits from the satellites, and the author uses that benefit to explain why they overlook possible harm from spacecraft. A states that pattern more generally: something supports people's activities, so they tend to ignore its possible objectionable consequences.
We aren't being asked to prove a general rule about everyone from this one example. We're choosing the principle that the author's explanation follows. A fits the reasoning about the environmentalists' attention.
- B
Weighing a downside against a larger benefit is different from failing to consider the downside. The author doesn't say the environmentalists examined the ozone risk and reasonably decided that earlier warnings were worth it. The author says they fail to consider the possible harm. B changes the thought process.
- C
A claim about technology's usual environmental impact misses the explanatory point. The passage isn't merely saying that satellites can have good and bad effects. It is using their benefit to explain why particular people neglect a possible bad effect. C says nothing about that neglect or why it happens.
- D
We aren't told that the satellites make the very problems they help detect worse. Possible ozone damage could be a different problem from whatever the satellites help environmentalists address. Nor does the passage establish that the overall result is worse. More importantly, D leaves out the author's explanation of why the downside goes unconsidered.
- E
Ignoring a possible consequence doesn't mean it was unforeseen. The ozone risk might be something the environmentalists could readily consider, but don't because they are focused on the benefits. E describes unexpected consequences of technology. Our author is describing how people attend to benefits while overlooking possible costs.
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.