PrepTest 130, Section 3, Question 18
It was once thought that pesticide TSX-400 was(56 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- ATwo pesticides should(17 more words not shown)
- BTwo pesticides should(11 more words not shown)
- CTwo pesticides should(11 more words not shown)
- DOne pesticide should(19 more words not shown)
- EOne pesticide should(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The old legal distinction followed the old beliefs: TSX-400 was thought very harmful and was banned, while Envirochem and Zanar were thought harmless and remained legal. The new studies put the relative harm in a different order. Each legal pesticide causes more environmental harm than the banned one.
I would want to know how the studies compare harm. Are they comparing equivalent use, or total harm under the current restrictions? An unused dangerous product could cause little actual damage simply because nobody uses it. But the passage doesn't establish that this is a defect in the studies, and the question asks us to justify the conclusion if their results are accurate.
What we’re looking for
The author wants the legal treatment changed: ban Envirochem and Zanar or legalize TSX-400. We need a principle making the current arrangement unacceptable on the stated harm comparison. It should explain why we cannot keep the more harmful products legal while the less harmful one remains illegal.
Working the answers
- A
This forbids two pesticides from both being legal if their harm differs. It could require changing the status of one of the legal pesticides, but it doesn't determine that both Envirochem and Zanar must be banned or that TSX-400 must be legalized. For example, keeping only the most harmful pesticide legal would avoid two differently harmful pesticides both being legal, yet it would leave the author's proposed alternatives unfulfilled.
- B
This requires harmlessness before two pesticides may both be legal. It could object to keeping Envirochem and Zanar legal together, since the studies establish that they cause harm. But banning just one and leaving the other legal would satisfy the restriction on pairs. That doesn't establish the author's conclusion that both should be banned unless TSX-400 is legalized.
- C
This gives a requirement for making two pesticides illegal: both must be harmful. It doesn't say that harmful pesticides must be banned, and it supplies no rule against the current arrangement. A condition that must be met before imposing a ban is different from a reason requiring a change in legal status here.
- DCorrect
'The former' is the legal pesticide; 'the latter' is the illegal one. D permits that split only when the legal pesticide is less harmful. The current split fails that requirement: Envirochem is more harmful than TSX-400, and Zanar is too. If TSX-400 stays illegal, neither of the other two can remain legal under this rule. They must both be banned. Alternatively, legalizing TSX-400 removes the conflict involving its being the less harmful but illegal pesticide. That supports the author's either-or conclusion.
- E
This allows a legal/illegal distinction when the legal pesticide is harmless and the illegal one harmful. That resembles the old beliefs, but the current evidence doesn't establish that any of these pesticides is harmless. In particular, being less harmful doesn't make TSX-400 harmless. The rule also gives one circumstance permitting different treatment, rather than requiring a change in the actual circumstances described.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.