PrepTest 112, Section 3, Question 1
Scientists agree that ingesting lead harms young children.(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(13 more words not shown)
- ALead-free paints contain(12 more words not shown)
- BThe money required(23 more words not shown)
- COther sources of(19 more words not shown)
- DRemoving lead paint(21 more words not shown)
- EMany other environmental(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What happens to the paint while someone is removing it? The first facts make removal sound sensible. Lead harms children when they ingest it, and older buildings contain more lead paint. But getting paint off a wall isn't necessarily the same as getting lead away from the children. Scraping could release particles that are easier for the children to take into their bodies than paint that remains on the wall.
What we’re looking for
That's my guess: the removal process might create a new route for exposure. We're asked to reconcile the scientists' beliefs, so keep the surprising change precise. Why would children ingest more lead even though lead paint was being removed? An answer about some other harm, or about why a little lead would remain, wouldn't yet explain that increase.
Working the answers
- A
Another paint could be harmful without containing lead. That might complicate a plan to improve children's overall health, but it doesn't explain why removing lead paint would make children ingest more lead. The substance being ingested matters, not just whether the replacement paint is safe.
- B
Perhaps the money could fund a more effective health program. That would give us a reason to compare ways of helping children, not an explanation of increased lead ingestion. Even an extremely expensive removal program could reduce exposure, and even a cheap one could increase it. We need to know what the removal does to the lead.
- C
This could explain why removing paint doesn't eliminate lead exposure. For example, if lead also came from pipes, children could still ingest lead after the paint was gone. But continuing exposure isn't the same as increased exposure. C doesn't say those other sources become worse when the paint is removed, so it leaves the surprising increase unexplained.
- DCorrect
This supplies the mechanism we suspected. Removing the paint disperses lead dust, and that dust is easier for children to ingest than paint on a wall. The removal can therefore increase how much lead reaches the children even while it reduces how much lead paint remains on the walls.
The scientists can consistently believe both that ingesting lead is harmful and that these removal requirements will increase ingestion. D explains that combination. It doesn't establish that leaving every painted wall untouched is always safe or that every possible removal method has the same result.
- E
A building could contain an even more dangerous hazard, such as exposed wiring, without that hazard explaining what happens to the lead. Ranking threats to overall health doesn't tell us why paint removal increases ingestion. We need a connection between the removal and the extra lead, which D provides.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.