PrepTest 121, Section 1, Question 18
Advocate: You claim that it is wrong to(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AAn action can(12 more words not shown)
- BOne should purchase(11 more words not shown)
- COne should purchase(8 more words not shown)
- DOne should not(11 more words not shown)
- EOne should not(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Buying the cleaner car doesn't mean approving everything its manufacturer does. Perhaps the buyer objects to gasoline-powered cars and chooses the electric model for exactly that reason.
The advocate points out that the purchase still benefits a company that makes gasoline vehicles. That's fair as a description of where the money goes. But why does it follow that the buyer shouldn't have the electric car? It could be difficult to find any company whose activities match all of a person's beliefs. The buyer might be choosing a less harmful option among the available ones.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a principle that helps justify the advocate's reasoning. So we need a rule that makes the company's other activities a reason to reject this purchase. My objection concerns that jump from supporting the company to violating one's own beliefs. A rule against supporting organizations that do things we consider wrong would address it, however demanding that rule might be in practice.
Working the answers
- A
Less harmful doesn't automatically mean acceptable. I agree that this leaves open the possibility that buying the electric car is wrong. But it doesn't establish that this purchase is wrong or explain why the manufacturer's other products make it so. Merely allowing the conclusion to be true doesn't supply the reason for accepting it.
- B
We haven't compared this electric car with every competing product. It could be the least polluting option available and still draw the advocate's criticism because its manufacturer also makes gasoline cars. B judges the product against its competitors; the argument judges support for the company through its other activities.
- C
This tells us to buy every product with no negative consequences. We need a reason not to have a particular product, and the electric car is described as polluting less, not as having no negative consequences. Neither the situation covered nor the recommendation matches the reasoning we need to support.
- DCorrect
The purchase benefits the organization, and that organization produces the gasoline vehicles the buyer objects to. D makes supporting such an organization something the buyer should avoid. That supplies the missing rule connecting the company's objectionable activity to the recommendation against the electric car. We don't have to endorse the rule ourselves to see how it supports this argument.
- E
This restriction concerns companies that make no environmentally sound products. The passage doesn't establish that the manufacturer falls in that category. The advocate objects because the company makes gasoline cars even though it also offers a less polluting electric car. We need a rule that addresses the objectionable activity, not a rule triggered only when every product fails an environmental standard.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.