PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 1
The water of Lake Laberge, in Canada, currently(34 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(18 more words not shown)
- ALevels of pesticides(14 more words not shown)
- BLake Laberge's water(8 more words not shown)
- CToxic chemicals usually(8 more words not shown)
- DNorth American manufacturers(3 more words not shown)
- EToxic chemicals become(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Banning a pesticide doesn't make the pesticide already in the lake disappear.
We know toxaphene is there. The question is why it is still there after North America stopped allowing its use. Maybe it takes a very long time to break down or leave the water. A ban could stop new legal applications while the old contamination lingers for decades.
What else could explain it? Perhaps the chemical travels from a part of the world where people still use it. Or perhaps someone is using it illegally. Those are possibilities to investigate, not facts we've been given. Notice that the ban covers North America, not just Canada, so pointing to ordinary legal use in the United States wouldn't solve the puzzle.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to explain the high levels. My first choice would be the lingering-contamination explanation: stopping use and cleaning up the lake are two different things. Let's see whether an answer gives us that connection.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Pesticide levels can remain high for decades after use stops. That explains how the ban and the current contamination can coexist. The pesticide could have entered the environment before the ban and remained there. We don't need evidence that someone broke the law or brought in a new supply to account for the high levels.
- B
Other pesticides don't explain this pesticide. The lake could contain many chemicals, but we would still need to explain why toxaphene remains at high levels after its use was banned. B gives us another fact about the water without connecting the ban to the contamination we're trying to understand.
- C
This makes one of our possible explanations less promising. If toxic chemicals usually don't travel far through the atmosphere, distant use is less helpful as an account of the lake's contamination. 'Usually' doesn't make that travel impossible, but the answer certainly doesn't explain why so much toxaphene is here.
- D
Opposing a ban isn't the same as violating it. Manufacturers could have fought the decision and then complied once it took effect. We need a reason the chemical remains in the lake, not information about who disliked the policy.
- E
Easier detection doesn't explain why the chemical is present at high levels in the water. This might help explain how investigators notice contamination in fish. It doesn't tell us why toxaphene remains in the lake after the ban.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.