PrepTest 124, Section 3, Question 2
Since the 1970s, environmentalists have largely succeeded in(37 more words not shown)
The argument's reasoning is flawed(3 more words not shown)
- Aattacks the environmentalists(5 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(12 more words not shown)
- Cfails to consider(16 more words not shown)
- Dfails to justify(13 more words not shown)
- Efails to consider(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What would have happened without the regulations?
The environment is getting worse despite extensive regulations. That could mean the regulations haven't been enough to solve the problem. It doesn't mean they haven't helped. Perhaps the damage would have grown much faster without them.
Maybe the existing rules don't address every source of damage. Maybe circumstances have changed and new rules are needed. Those possibilities don't prove that more regulation is the answer. They show why the failure to eliminate the problem doesn't establish that further efforts cannot help.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I want the missing comparison: what happened with the regulations versus what would have happened without them. Looking only at whether conditions got worse over time leaves that question unanswered.
Working the answers
- A
The author attacks the environmentalists' proposal for more regulation, not their character or motives. Reporting that environmentalists acknowledge worsening conditions uses their own description of the problem. It isn't a personal attack in place of discussing the policy.
- B
Rejecting additional regulations is different from claiming that no regulations at all would prevent damage. The conclusion doesn't recommend eliminating every existing rule, much less say that complete absence of rules is the only way to prevent degradation. B attributes a stronger and different position.
- CCorrect
The environment might have deteriorated even more without the regulations. If so, the rules could have reduced the damage even though they didn't turn the overall trend around. That possibility undermines the author's use of continued worsening as a reason to dismiss further regulation. Helping with a problem and completely solving it aren't the same thing.
- D
The author doesn't say reducing regulation matters more than protecting the environment. The claim is that more regulation isn't the solution to environmental problems. We can challenge the evidence for that claim without inventing a preference for deregulation over preservation.
- E
The flaw isn't that the author fails to report what every opponent of environmentalism believes. An opponent might agree or disagree for many reasons. We need to examine the inference actually made: continued deterioration is being used to discount regulation without considering how much worse conditions might otherwise have been.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.