PrepTest 142, Section 4, Question 6
Scientist: There is a lot of concern that(46 more words not shown)
The scientist's argument requires assuming(5 more words not shown)
- AThe same degree(21 more words not shown)
- BHuman beings can(13 more words not shown)
- CAt least some(10 more words not shown)
- DLarge-scale climate change(11 more words not shown)
- EIt is easier(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Causing a problem doesn't automatically give us control over what happens next.
Suppose I kill a plant by failing to water it. I can't announce, 'Good news! Since my behavior caused this, watering it now will bring it back.' The damage might already be done. That makes me pause when the scientist treats human responsibility as an opportunity to control future climate change.
The plant example isn't proof that climate change is irreversible. And controlling future changes needn't mean undoing every past effect. It simply shows why we should question the move from causing something to being able to manage what follows.
What we’re looking for
For a required assumption, I'd look for something the proposed control depends on. The scientist needs a real way for people to influence the future outcome; pointing to human responsibility alone doesn't establish that ability.
Working the answers
- A
The scientist doesn't need human-caused change to be less damaging than an equally large natural change. The proposed advantage is our ability to control future changes, not a claim that a human origin makes a given change less harmful.
- BCorrect
This identifies another condition for the proposed control: people must be able to control the relevant behavior. Even if changing that behavior could influence the climate, the opportunity would disappear if people couldn't make the change.
That is different from my initial concern about damage already done. B focuses on the human side of the proposed solution. The argument treats human responsibility as useful because it supposedly puts the cause within our control; B makes that assumed ability explicit.
- C
The word 'if' matters. The scientist is considering what would follow if human behavior caused climate change, not establishing that humans caused some previous large-scale changes. Those earlier shifts could have been natural while human behavior affected future ones. C turns a conditional argument into a historical claim it doesn't require.
- D
Climate change could endanger other species just as much as humans, or more. The argument still needs the same connection between our behavior and our ability to influence future change. Ranking the danger to different species doesn't supply it.
- E
Which task is easier isn't the question. Identifying the relevant behavior could be easier or harder than changing it. What matters for the scientist's proposal is whether we can control that behavior at all.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.