PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 4
Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our factory(55 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the industrialist's(6 more words not shown)
- Aimpugns the motives(11 more words not shown)
- Bdoes not consider(10 more words not shown)
- Cpresents no testimony(7 more words not shown)
- Dfails to discuss(9 more words not shown)
- Eequivocates between two(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The residents haven't proved the emissions are dangerous. Does that prove they're safe?
The residents might have noticed a real problem. On the other hand, seeing something come out of a factory isn't enough by itself to establish a health risk; what is being released matters. We need evidence about these emissions.
Let's even grant the industrialist's rule that only a trained scientist can determine whether the emissions are dangerous. That would leave the residents unable to settle the question. It would not settle the question in the industrialist's favor. The emissions could be dangerous before a qualified person has investigated them.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion should stop at 'We don't know yet.' Instead, the industrialist announces that there is no health risk. For the flaw question, that's the jump to explain: a lack of qualified evidence for danger is being treated as evidence of safety.
Working the answers
- A
The industrialist challenges the residents' qualifications, not their motives. The argument says they aren't scientists; it doesn't claim they are lying, seeking money, or trying to hurt the business. More importantly, even granting the qualification requirement doesn't establish safety.
- B
Another source of emissions might pose a risk too. That wouldn't tell us whether this factory's emissions are safe. The conclusion concerns this factory, so investigating a different polluter is not the missing support for that conclusion.
- CCorrect
Where is the scientific testimony establishing safety? The industrialist demands a trained scientist before accepting danger but supplies no such support for the opposite conclusion. If no qualified evidence has been presented either way, the question remains open. The residents' failure to prove their claim does not prove the factory harmless.
- D
Jobs and other benefits could make the factory valuable to the community while its emissions still posed a health risk. We aren't weighing whether the factory is good for the community overall. We're deciding whether the claim that its emissions pose no health risk has been supported. Economic benefits would not establish that.
- E
'Health risk' means danger to people's health in both places. The reasoning goes wrong when the industrialist moves from an unsupported claim of danger to a claim of safety. It doesn't depend on changing what the term means.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.