PrepTest 111, Section 3, Question 8
Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits(91 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- ANew farms do(13 more words not shown)
- BMany of the(12 more words not shown)
- CUnlike oil, common(9 more words not shown)
- DLegislation governing new(14 more words not shown)
- EThe country under(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The opponent has told us the added oil would be a small share of the country's needs. But how large is the risk being weighed against that benefit? That's what I'd want to know before rejecting the project. A modest benefit might be worth a tiny risk. The opponent doesn't give us much detail on that side of the comparison.
The proponent has a fair response to the small-share point: a new farm also supplies only a small share of national demand, but that doesn't establish that the farm shouldn't exist. Still, are farms and oil wells alike in the way this argument needs?
What we’re looking for
We're asked to weaken the proponent's reply, so I'd look for a difference that makes the farming comparison unreliable. One possibility might be a difference in scale: perhaps a single oil well could supply a very large share of demand even though no single farm could. We haven't been told that, but it's the kind of possibility that makes me question whether the comparison fits. The answer needs a meaningful difference, not just any way farms and wells differ.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This gives a more direct difference: new farms don't carry a risk comparable to the risk of new offshore drilling. The opponent didn't simply say the added oil was small. The claim was that the benefit wasn't worth the risk of environmental disaster.
A farm's small contribution might be worthwhile when it comes without a comparable danger, while a well's small contribution might not justify the danger it creates. The proponent's comparison leaves that part of the opponent's reasoning out. A doesn't have to show that farms carry no risks at all; the relevant point is that they don't carry an analogous risk.
- B
We aren't choosing whether to use the same land for farming or drilling. The proposal concerns offshore wells, and the proponent uses farms as a comparison. Whether land above other oil deposits is suitable for farming doesn't explain why the reasoning about small contributions fails to transfer.
- C
Food and fuel meet different needs, but the comparison never required them to meet the same need. The proponent's point is that a small addition to a needed supply can still be useful. C doesn't show why that point should work for nutrition but fail for fuel. The difference has to matter to the reasoning.
- D
More fully developed legislation doesn't tell us how the benefits or risks compare. We would have to add another claim connecting that legal detail to a relevant difference between the projects. D doesn't supply one.
- E
Different import shares don't, by themselves, show whether one small new source should be permitted. The country could import more food than oil and still benefit from additional domestic sources of either. E doesn't address the omitted risk that makes A a direct challenge to this comparison.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.