PrepTest 129, Section 1, Question 13
Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively(79 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AIn the time(35 more words not shown)
- BIn some countries,(31 more words not shown)
- CThe use of(28 more words not shown)
- DThere are ways(28 more words not shown)
- EIf international agreements(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The fossil-fuel producers have a financial interest in the issue, but that doesn't make their cost prediction false. We still need to know whether the required emissions reduction would be prohibitively expensive.
The author points to an earlier industry prediction. Chemical companies said an economical alternative to CFCs was impossible, then phased the chemicals out when required to do so, sometimes at a profit. That is a reason to be skeptical of claims that an environmental change can't be afforded.
But is this the same kind of problem? Perhaps reducing carbon dioxide enough to halt warming is much harder or more expensive than replacing CFCs. Success with one challenge doesn't establish the cost of meeting a different one.
What we’re looking for
To strengthen the argument, I'd want evidence that the comparison works: achieving the needed carbon dioxide reduction is economically comparable to, or easier than, the CFC change. Keep the actual conclusion in view. We aren't merely asking whether emissions can fall at all; we're asking about the cost of reducing them enough to halt global warming.
Working the answers
- A
This describes what happened to ozone damage and carbon dioxide emissions. It doesn't tell us how expensive the needed carbon dioxide reduction would be. Rising emissions could result from a refusal to change or from an expensive obstacle; A doesn't decide between those possibilities.
- B
Some affordable reduction is encouraging, but how much reduction was achieved? Imagine cutting emissions by two percent cheaply while the much larger reduction needed to halt warming remains prohibitively expensive. B doesn't rule that out. Its missing piece is the 'enough to halt global warming' threshold, not simply the inconvenience to fuel users.
- C
The relative damage caused by the two substances isn't a comparison of the costs of controlling them. A more damaging problem could be inexpensive to solve, and a less damaging one could be expensive. C doesn't repair the economic comparison on which the argument relies.
- DCorrect
This connects both the target and the cost: there are reductions capable of halting global warming, and their effect on fossil-fuel producers' profits would not be significantly worse than the effect of eliminating CFCs on the chemical industry. We already know that the CFC change proved economically manageable, even profitable in many cases. D makes that precedent relevant to the required emissions reduction and directly counters the worry that this new task is economically much harder.
- E
Finding substitutes isn't the same as finding affordable substitutes. A replacement fuel could exist and still be prohibitively expensive to produce or use. E helps with feasibility, but it doesn't answer the specific cost objection made by the producers.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.