PrepTest 111, Section 3, Question 3
Opponents of peat harvesting in this country argue(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AOver hundreds of(20 more words not shown)
- BThe original ecology(18 more words not shown)
- CThe activities of(18 more words not shown)
- DThe peat resources(15 more words not shown)
- EThe peat-harvesting industry(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if Ireland's wetlands are different from ours?
The opponents say harvesting peat would upset the wetlands and contaminate the water supply. I want to know whether that's true. Ireland's experience seems relevant: peat has been harvested there for centuries without contaminating the water. But why should the same result follow here?
Maybe the two places have different climates or different kinds of wetlands. Perhaps this country plans to harvest peat on a much larger scale. Those are possibilities to check, not facts we're adding. They show why one country's experience doesn't automatically settle another country's risk.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to strengthen the argument for proceeding. I'd want evidence that Ireland is a good comparison—that the places are alike in a way that matters to the ecological concern. We don't have to prove every detail is identical, but we do need a reason to trust the comparison.
Working the answers
- A
Ecosystems changing over time doesn't tell us whether harvesting peat will contaminate this country's water. A natural or gradual change might benefit certain organisms, while removing peat could have a different effect. We need support for this proposed activity, not the general observation that ecological conditions don't remain fixed forever.
- BCorrect
The Irish areas started with virtually the same ecology as this country's undisturbed wetlands. That makes Ireland's successful experience more informative about what might happen here. If the starting conditions were substantially different, the Irish outcome would be a weaker guide. B reduces that concern.
It doesn't prove that every detail of the harvesting will match, and it doesn't answer every possible objection. It strengthens the analogy on the very feature at issue: the ecology of the areas being harvested.
- C
Other industries might contaminate the water, but that doesn't show peat harvesting is safe. The question is whether this activity adds the threatened danger. Harm from another source doesn't remove the need to examine the risk from peat harvesting.
- D
Having more peat doesn't tell us what harvesting it will do to the ecological balance or water supply. A larger resource could be harvested carefully or destructively. D compares amounts of peat without establishing the similarity in ecological conditions that would make the other countries' experiences reassuring.
- E
Supplying fuel is a benefit of Ireland's peat industry, but the opponents' objection concerns contaminated water. We already know Ireland has harvested peat for centuries. Knowing how much fuel the industry supplies doesn't show that this country's wetlands would respond like Ireland's.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.