PrepTest 121, Section 4, Question 10
The proposed coal-burning electric plant should be approved,(23 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe competing electricity(17 more words not shown)
- BIf a person's(21 more words not shown)
- CApproval of the(20 more words not shown)
- DIf good arguments(11 more words not shown)
- EArguments made by(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why should we build the plant? “Nobody has offered a good argument against it” doesn't, by itself, make the project a good idea. An absurd proposal could go unchallenged simply because nobody thought it worth discussing. Imagine proposing to spend an entire salary on preserving unicorns: the absence of a formal objection wouldn't make that sensible.
Then the author explains why the objections don't count: they all come from competing electricity producers.
But competitors can be right.
Imagine a rival pointing out a real pollution problem with the proposed coal plant. The rival might want to protect its business and accurately describe the problem. Having a reason to oppose the project doesn't automatically make the opposition's argument bad.
What we’re looking for
The assumption question focuses our attention on that jump. The author uses the competitors' stake in the outcome to dismiss their arguments. That reasoning relies on a rule treating interested sources as incapable of giving good arguments. It's the connection between who is speaking and whether the speaker's argument deserves consideration.
Working the answers
- A
The competitors don't have to face large revenue losses for the author to dismiss them as interested parties. Their stake could be smaller or take another form. A might explain a strong motive to oppose the plant, but the reasoning doesn't depend on the particular claim that they would lose large amounts of revenue.
- B
This goes in the wrong direction. It starts with defective arguments and concludes that the person has a vested interest. Our author starts with the vested interest and concludes that the arguments are defective.
Even if everyone giving a bad argument were interested in the outcome, interested people could also give good arguments. B wouldn't justify dismissing the competitors' objections simply because they are competitors.
- C
We aren't comparing how happy different fuel suppliers would be. The author's reasoning concerns the quality of the objections from competing electricity producers. Relative satisfaction among suppliers does nothing to connect those producers' interests with the claim that their arguments are bad.
- D
The author doesn't offer good arguments for the plant and then apply a rule favoring approval. The claimed basis is the absence of good arguments against it. A rule about positive support doesn't justify dismissing the objections we've actually been told about.
- ECorrect
This states the rule the author is relying on to discard the competitors' arguments: a vested interest in the outcome makes an argument no good. That links the source of the objections to the judgment that no good objections have been offered.
We don't have to accept that rule ourselves. Our pollution example shows why we should question it. But without treating the competitors' interest as grounds for rejecting their arguments, the author's stated reason for calling those arguments bad disappears.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.