PrepTest 141, Section 4, Question 14
Environmentalist: Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes(46 more words not shown)
The environmentalist's statements, if true,(8 more words not shown)
- AThe cost of(24 more words not shown)
- BHeavier taxes on(17 more words not shown)
- CConsumers would purchase(25 more words not shown)
- DThe only cost(17 more words not shown)
- EPollution from gasoline(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If the environmental cost doesn't show up at the pump, a driver may not take it into account when deciding how much to drive. Adding it to the price changes the immediate incentive: driving now costs that person more.
I can see how that could reduce driving. I'd still have a question about the broader pollution claim: what if people replace driving with some other activity that also pollutes? Staying home and using more electricity, for example, is something we'd have to examine before making an overall comparison. That is a possible concern, not evidence that staying home actually causes more pollution.
But the question tells us to accept the environmentalist's statements as true. Our job now is to draw a supported conclusion from the account we're given, not to defeat it. The account says higher taxes would incorporate the environmental cost and lead consumers to pollute less.
What we’re looking for
Also notice the difference between predicting an effect and recommending a policy. The speaker describes what would happen. The passage doesn't settle whether all the benefits and costs make heavier taxes something we should adopt.
Working the answers
- A
This introduces a rule about when the environmental cost should or shouldn't be reflected in the price. The passage predicts a response to including that cost; it doesn't establish A's policy restriction. A claim about what would happen isn't automatically a rule about what should be done.
- B
People could respond simply by thinking, 'Gas costs more, so I'll drive less.' They wouldn't need to learn which environmental problems their driving contributes to. A price incentive can change behavior without increasing knowledge of particular kinds of environmental damage.
- CCorrect
This captures the consumer response the account supports: including the environmental cost in the price would reduce gasoline purchases on average. The argument links that cost, driving decisions, and reduced pollution through higher gasoline prices. C stays with that incentive-based effect instead of adding a recommendation or an educational benefit.
- D
The passage doesn't say gasoline is the only cost consumers consider. They might also consider parking charges, maintenance, or the time a trip takes. Saying one currently unpriced cost usually doesn't affect their decisions doesn't mean that only a single other cost matters.
- E
A way to reduce pollution needn't be the only way. Cleaner technology, for example, could reduce pollution from driving without motorists giving more thought to its cost. The passage supports an effect of changing prices, not a requirement that all pollution reductions depend on greater consumer consideration.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.