PrepTest 109, Section 3, Question 15
Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse damage(63 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the environmentalists'(5 more words not shown)
- Atreats as similar(9 more words not shown)
- Bjustifies a generalization(7 more words not shown)
- Cfails to distinguish(14 more words not shown)
- Dattempts to compare(9 more words not shown)
- Epresupposes that experiments(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The same amount of damage doesn't automatically mean the same justification.
Let's accept the environmentalists' comparison: one spacecraft trip harms the ozone layer as much as a year of pollution from the average factory. That is a real cost of the experiments. But what might the experiments accomplish? The scientists are trying to understand and eventually reverse damage to the very thing the spacecraft harms.
What if avoiding the trip leaves us less able to solve the larger problem? Some damage now could be justified by valuable knowledge that helps reduce or reverse damage later. That benefit isn't guaranteed, but the criticism cannot fairly assess the trip by looking only at its immediate harm. The purpose and possible consequences of the research matter too.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd look for the unfair comparison. The environmentalists take the judgment about factory pollution and carry it over to the spacecraft solely because the amounts of damage match. The experiments' potential contribution to repairing the ozone layer is a relevant difference they leave out.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The two cases match in the stated amount of harm, but they may differ in a way that matters to justification. The spacecraft conducts research intended to help understand and reverse ozone damage. No comparable role is given for the factory pollution.
That doesn't mean factories have no benefits or that every research trip is justified. It means the judgment cannot rest entirely on equal harm while ignoring the possible benefits that distinguish these cases.
- B
The environmentalists don't move from one spacecraft trip to a general claim that all research, or all spacecraft trips, are unjustifiable. They use the judgment about factory pollution to condemn these experiments. The problem is the comparison between cases, not a generalization from one case to a whole class.
- C
Reversing existing damage and preventing new damage are different goals, but the criticism doesn't depend on confusing those two goals. It depends on treating equal damage as enough for the same judgment. Whether the research aims to repair damage already done or help avoid future damage, its potential benefit still needs consideration.
- D
The amounts of ozone damage are comparable; the passage explicitly says they are equal. We can accept that comparison and still challenge the conclusion. What doesn't automatically carry across is the judgment of whether the damage is justified. Equal quantities of harm don't establish equal circumstances or benefits.
- E
The criticism identifies harm from these experiments. It doesn't assume that every experiment harms what it studies. Some other experiments could be completely harmless without changing this argument. E attributes a universal claim that the environmentalists never need.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.