PrepTest 138, Section 4, Question 16
Company spokesperson: In lieu of redesigning our plants,(59 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AOnly 1 percent(10 more words not shown)
- BIt would cost(27 more words not shown)
- CBecause the company(19 more words not shown)
- DAutomobiles made after(10 more words not shown)
- ESince the company(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Thirty percent is larger than 4 percent. But how much of that 30 percent will this company actually remove?
The spokesperson compares pollution from all the old cars with pollution from the company's plants. The proposed program won't automatically buy every old car. Owners might refuse to sell, or the company might lack the money to buy enough vehicles. Knowing how much pollution the entire category produces doesn't tell us how much this particular effort will eliminate.
We could also wonder whether disposal creates pollution of its own. And the plants might cause problems besides air pollution. But the conclusion is specifically about which option reduces more air pollution, so that's the comparison to keep in view.
What we’re looking for
I'd look for a weakener showing that the car-buying program accomplishes much less than the spokesperson assumes. We need to examine the cars the company actually gets, not simply the size of the pollution category it hopes to target.
Working the answers
- A
A small share of cars can still produce a large share of emissions. We're already told the older cars account for 30 percent of local air pollution. If that pollution comes from relatively few cars, buying them might be easier, not less useful. A doesn't show that this program fails to reach the polluting cars.
- B
Saving money is different from reducing more air pollution. The scrap metal could make the campaign financially attractive even if the plant redesign would produce a greater air-quality improvement. B doesn't undermine the claimed pollution reduction; it changes the comparison to financial cost.
- CCorrect
The company is mostly buying cars that no longer run. Those cars aren't being driven around producing the emissions the program is supposed to remove. Buying a broken car out of someone's yard doesn't take a functioning polluting car off the road.
This gets at the practical problem in a different way from owners refusing to sell: people sell the company cars that weren't contributing the relevant driving emissions in the first place. Almost none still run, so the program's purchases give us little reason to expect a large reduction in that 30 percent.
- D
Pollution from newer cars doesn't tell us how much the company will remove by buying old cars, or how that compares with redesigning its plants. Another large pollution source can exist while either of the proposed options is better.
- E
Fewer complaints could indicate a better public impression of the company without showing cleaner air. The conclusion is about the amount of pollution reduced, not whether the campaign makes people less likely to complain about the plants.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.