PrepTest 111, Section 1, Question 8
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are(62 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AContaminants in the(9 more words not shown)
- BLobsters, like other(11 more words not shown)
- CLobsters breed as(8 more words not shown)
- DGill diseases cannot(9 more words not shown)
- EHumans often become(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about the people eating the lobsters?
The argument focuses on whether the diseases harm the lobsters before they are caught. But that isn't the only possible reason to keep sewage out of their water. A lobster could carry a disease without yet being harmed by it, and eating that lobster might still be bad for a person.
What we’re looking for
We don't know from the passage that this happens. It is the possibility I want to investigate before accepting “pointless.” The author has dismissed a proposal that would substantially reduce the sewage where food is caught, based only on the lack of one kind of benefit to the animals. To weaken that dismissal, I'd look for a benefit it overlooks, especially protection for the people who eat them.
Working the answers
- A
Other contaminants can be harmful without showing that removing sewage has no benefit. But their existence also doesn't give us a reason this particular sewage proposal is worthwhile. The answer leaves the overlooked benefit unestablished. We don't need a plan that removes every pollutant, but we do need something supporting a point to this plan.
- B
The plan moves sewage, not lobsters, offshore. A difference between lobster lifespans in two habitats doesn't tell us what benefit reducing the harbor's sewage would produce. We would need a connection between this change and something valuable the proposal accomplishes.
- C
This says the sewage doesn't interfere with breeding. That doesn't identify a benefit of reducing it. The author could accept this fact while still making the same argument about the proposal being pointless. We need a reason to care about the reduction, not another activity that sewage leaves unaffected.
- D
A hidden disease sounds concerning, but why does its being hidden matter here? If it doesn't hurt the lobster before it is caught and poses no other problem, difficulty spotting it doesn't yet show that the plan has a point. Add harm to the people eating it and the concern becomes clearer, but D doesn't give us that fact.
- ECorrect
Here is the human consequence we were looking for. Eating lobsters with these diseases often makes people ill. The diseases can therefore matter even when the lobsters haven't lived long enough to suffer harm themselves.
Reducing sewage reduces the conditions that make these diseases more likely, which gives the proposal a public benefit the argument ignored. We don't need E to establish that this is the best possible sewage plan. A reason the reduction can protect consumers is enough to undermine the claim that it is pointless.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.