PrepTest 142, Section 2, Question 4
The legislature is considering a proposed bill that(77 more words not shown)
The argument proceeds by presenting(2 more words not shown)
- Athe toxic contamination(15 more words not shown)
- Bthe moral principle(16 more words not shown)
- Cthe opponents of(15 more words not shown)
- Dfailure to enact(12 more words not shown)
- Ethe ban would(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Hurting the fishing industry would matter. But is there a reason to ban fishing anyway? Perhaps the fish population needs protection. Let's see what reason this argument actually gives.
The fish are contaminated. In the study, 80 percent contained toxins above the government's safety standards. The argument is concerned with what happens when people continue catching and consuming those fish. Its reason for the ban is public health, not protecting the fish population.
What we’re looking for
That is a sensible basis for the recommendation. We don't need to invent an objection just because the passage is an argument. The question asks how the argument proceeds: it supports a proposed restriction by showing the serious danger of continuing to allow the activity. The economic concern is acknowledged, but the health risk supplies the reason to enact the ban.
Working the answers
- A
The argument mentions concern about the ban's economic effects. It doesn't present evidence that contamination has already gravely damaged the fishing industry. Keep the proposed ban's possible cost separate from the contamination's danger to public health.
- B
The author reasons about consequences in this particular case, but doesn't offer evidence that a general moral principle is usually correct. The fish study is evidence of a health danger, not a study of whether all actions should be judged by their foreseeable effects.
- C
We aren't told how carefully opponents have weighed the competing effects. A fisherman could understand the health concern and still say, “I need to pay my bills.” That might leave us unconvinced by the opposition, but it wouldn't show that the fisherman failed to consider the tradeoff. The author makes the case for the ban without diagnosing the opponents' thought process.
- DCorrect
Leaving fishing legal would expose the public to the grave health effects the author identifies. The contamination evidence supports treating that risk as unacceptable, which in turn supports enacting the ban despite the economic concern. D captures the link from the evidence to the recommendation.
- E
Banning fishing doesn't clean the water or remove toxins from fish. The fish could remain just as contaminated after the ban. The point is to keep people from catching and consuming them, so reducing exposure to a danger mustn't be confused with eliminating the contamination itself.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.