PrepTest 140, Section 3, Question 21
Prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes permanently damages one's(59 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(6 more words not shown)
- AThe chemicals used(12 more words not shown)
- BThe subjects in(11 more words not shown)
- CMost members of(15 more words not shown)
- DEvery sulfur-emitting factory(11 more words not shown)
- EBecause of the(27 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could the workers smell the scent without knowing what to call it?
If you gave me a bottle smelling of lavender, I might notice a perfectly clear smell and still fail to identify it as lavender. Someone who knows flowers well might name it immediately. A test of identifying scents can therefore measure familiarity as well as the ability to smell.
The factory workers did much worse than the comparison group, but the argument goes further than that observation: sulfur exposure permanently damaged their sense of smell. We should ask whether the groups differed in some other relevant way, whether something interfered with the test itself, and whether sulfur is the right cause to blame.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the exception among weakeners. Four choices will give us a reason to doubt some part of that explanation. The answer we select won't. Keep the actual claim in view: poor identification needs to support permanent damage caused specifically by sulfur.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Both groups were identifying chemically reproduced scents. Saying those reproductions were close but imperfect doesn't give us a reason one group would do so much worse than the other. A slightly imperfect reproduction could still be a useful test item. A doesn't supply the relevant group difference or alternative cause that the other choices provide.
- B
Sulfur odors in the factory could interfere with the workers' ability to pick out the test scents at that moment. Think of trying to notice a faint flower scent while a much stronger smell surrounds you. Poor performance in that setting needn't establish permanent damage to the ability to smell. This weakens the argument, so it isn't the exception.
- C
The comparison group had previous practice identifying scents. That experience could help them name the test smells even if their basic sense of smell were no better than the factory workers'. We now have a difference in experience that could explain some of the performance gap.
- D
Other noxious fumes provide a competing possible cause. Even if the workers' sense of smell was damaged, the damage might come from one of those other substances rather than sulfur. This targets the conclusion's attribution to sulfur, not necessarily the existence of damage.
- E
This directly develops the familiarity objection. The factory workers were less likely to have encountered many test scents before. If I don't know what lavender smells like, failing to name it doesn't show I can't smell it. Less exposure could reduce identification scores without permanent sensory damage.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.