PrepTest 112, Section 3, Question 15
Environmentalists who seek stricter governmental regulations controlling water(45 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AMiddle-level managers who(40 more words not shown)
- BPoliticians who defend(50 more words not shown)
- CPeople who are(39 more words not shown)
- DWhoever wants to(32 more words not shown)
- EActivists who want(40 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An exaggerated warning can make the next, accurate warning harder to believe.
At first, I'm wary of rejecting environmental concerns just because someone got a fact wrong. Suppose someone described 50 gallons of pollution when there were really 40. Forty could still be a serious problem; correcting the number wouldn't automatically justify ignoring the concern.
But the author isn't saying the public would be right to ignore a later warning. The author is warning that this is what could happen. It's the boy who cried wolf: earlier unreliable warnings damage credibility, so people fail to respond when a real danger arrives.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel principle, keep that full sequence. Someone seeking action should have reliable support now, because losing credibility could cause a later, well-founded request to be ignored. Another argument about persuasive speaking isn't enough; the reason for the advice needs to match.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The middle-level managers correspond to the environmentalists. They ask higher-level managers to hire staff, just as the environmentalists ask the government to impose stronger regulations. Strong evidence of a benefit plays the role of having the facts straight.
Then comes the same warning: without that support, the audience may stop following their requests even when the requested action really would help. The important match isn't the workplace setting; it is the loss of credibility carrying over to a later justified appeal.
- B
This also warns of a backlash, which makes it tempting. But its concern is inflammatory delivery, even when the facts are correct. The original concerns overstating the threat and thereby losing credibility. Calm rhetoric and accurate support are different recommendations, and B's backlash concerns reactions to the constituency rather than later disbelief of an accurate warning.
- C
This recommends emotional evidence because it is supposedly more persuasive. It doesn't warn that unsupported or inaccurate claims will make people disregard a later valid claim. We don't need to decide whether the persuasion claim is true to see that it is a different reason for choosing an approach.
- D
This appeals to legislators' concern for their careers as a way to get attention. It doesn't require a prior inaccurate claim, lost credibility, or a later request ignored despite being well founded. The possibility of being ignored is only the endpoint of our pattern; D doesn't supply the same route to it.
- E
This recommends appealing to an audience's economic self-interest to prevent an unwanted outcome. It says nothing about damage to the speaker's credibility or how that damage could undermine future accurate appeals. The shared goal of getting people to act doesn't make it the same principle.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.