PrepTest 135, Section 2, Question 11
Spreading iron particles over the surface of the(63 more words not shown)
The reasoning above most closely(8 more words not shown)
- AA problem-solving strategy(12 more words not shown)
- BImplementing a problem-solving(15 more words not shown)
- CWe should not(17 more words not shown)
- DWe should not(12 more words not shown)
- EAs long as(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The plan has a benefit. What else would it do to the ocean?
We're told that adding iron would increase phytoplankton, reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, and counteract the greenhouse effect. Accept those benefits. They don't tell us whether changing the oceans this way would also cause serious problems. A strategy can solve one problem and create another.
That's why the author recommends waiting: the side effects haven't been studied, and the resource we're altering is important. The concern isn't that we already know the plan would do more harm than good. We don't yet know enough to make that comparison.
What we’re looking for
Someone might argue that the original problem is so urgent that we should act despite the uncertainty. But this question asks which principle matches the author's reasoning. We want the cautious rule the author uses: don't implement a strategy that changes an important resource while its consequences remain inadequately understood.
Working the answers
- A
Knowing the side effects doesn't guarantee that implementing the strategy is a good idea. We could know that its side effects are disastrous. The author gives a reason not to act yet; that isn't the same as saying we should act as soon as the effects are known.
- BCorrect
The oceans are an important resource, the proposed strategy would alter them, and the side effects haven't been adequately studied. Under this principle, implementation is impermissible while that uncertainty remains. That matches the author's reason for opposing immediate action.
- C
The author hasn't established that the consequences would be worse than the greenhouse effect. Perhaps they would be; perhaps they would be minor. This rule concerns a known comparison of seriousness, while the argument's concern is that the consequences aren't yet understood.
- D
This would forbid a strategy just because it changes an important resource—even if the changes were well understood and beneficial. The author objects to proceeding without studying the effects, not to every possible alteration of the oceans.
- E
Making the original problem worse is different from creating other side effects. The passage grants that the strategy would counteract the greenhouse effect; the worry is what else it might do to the oceans. This rule targets a possibility the argument doesn't rely on.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.