PrepTest 125, Section 4, Question 10
Albert: The government has proposed new automobile emissions(68 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(14 more words not shown)
- AMost automobile manufacturers(8 more words not shown)
- BIt is not(18 more words not shown)
- CEven if no(20 more words not shown)
- DMost of the(15 more words not shown)
- EPAHs are one(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Albert hasn't shown that these pollutants are harmless. Not having proof that they cause cancer isn't proof that they don't. And cancer might not be the only concern.
That's where Erin comes in: scientists blame PAHs for premature deaths from heart and lung disease too. She gives a reason to care about the pollutants even if the cancer question remains unsettled. But her next step needs more work. Would these particular regulations actually prevent thousands of deaths?
One objection could question the evidence connecting PAHs with those illnesses. Another could question the policy's effect. Perhaps it would reduce exposure without reducing it enough to prevent the harm. Imagine exposure falling to 20 percent of its old level, but that remaining amount still being dangerous.
Or ask where the harmful PAHs are coming from. A rule targeting automobile exhaust won't necessarily address every source.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for Albert's strongest counter to Erin. Keep the target narrow: her prediction that the proposed regulations would save thousands of lives. We need a reason to doubt that benefit, not just a reason somebody might dislike the regulations.
Working the answers
- A
Manufacturers' opposition doesn't tell us whether the regulations would save lives. They could dislike the expense or inconvenience of changing their products even if the changes helped people. We need evidence against Erin's predicted benefit, not a vote from the companies affected.
- B
At first, the lack of knowledge sounds like our concern about the evidence. But this concerns diseases other than heart disease, lung disease, and cancer. Erin relies on heart and lung disease. Uncertainty about additional diseases leaves her stated reason untouched.
- C
Would automobile usage decline? The answer doesn't tell us that it will. It gives a possible way PAHs could decrease without the regulations, conditional on people driving less. That condition hasn't been established, and it doesn't show the regulations would fail to provide a benefit.
- DCorrect
Most of the PAHs come from tire wear, while the proposed regulations target exhaust. That is a concrete reason to question whether this policy addresses enough of the pollution responsible for the deaths. Changing what comes out of the exhaust doesn't necessarily change what comes off the tires.
This doesn't establish that the regulations would save no lives. Some PAHs could still come from exhaust. But Erin used the deaths attributed to PAHs generally to predict a large benefit from regulating one source. Learning that most come from another source weakens that connection.
- E
Other suspected cancer-causing substances in exhaust don't undermine the proposed benefit from reducing PAHs. Erin's point concerns heart and lung disease, and this answer gives no reason to doubt that point or the regulations' effect on it. Finding more possible hazards in exhaust isn't a counter to the claim that reducing one hazard would help.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.