PrepTest 143, Section 1, Question 5
Environment minister: Because of our concern about global(35 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AOwners of large(20 more words not shown)
- BOver the last(25 more words not shown)
- CWhen ground is(31 more words not shown)
- DMany climate researchers(22 more words not shown)
- EGases other than(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Trees absorb carbon dioxide. How much help will planting them provide over the next ten years?
The minister wants a substantial reduction, so the amount and timing matter. I can accept that trees absorb carbon dioxide and still wonder whether the planned trees will absorb enough to make a useful contribution. The conclusion only says they will help; the trees don't have to achieve the entire commitment by themselves.
There's also a broader worry: other countries could keep emitting carbon dioxide. But that wouldn't show that this country's tree planting fails to help with its own commitment. We need to stay with the specific proposal rather than ask whether it solves all of global warming.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for a weakener. I'd initially look for a limit on how much carbon dioxide the new trees can take out of the atmosphere during the relevant period. Let's see whether the choices give us that problem or another reason the plan won't help.
Working the answers
- A
What if the country has plenty of public land? The plan may not require private owners' cooperation. Even if it does, the government might provide the financial incentives mentioned here. A gives us a possible practical obstacle without showing that the planting plan won't contribute to the commitment.
- B
This compares changes in two proportions over the previous ten years. It doesn't establish the effect of the proposed new planting over the next ten. We'd need a connection between those past trends and whether these trees will help reduce the country's carbon dioxide contribution.
- CCorrect
Planting the trees adds carbon dioxide too. Disturbing the soil releases more through rotting organic matter than the new trees will absorb in the entire ten-year period. That comparison makes the net effect run the wrong way: the planting contributes more carbon dioxide than it removes during the period of the commitment. Trees can absorb carbon dioxide while planting them still fails to help overall.
- D
Wanting results sooner doesn't establish that this proposal won't help within ten years. The researchers may think the commitment is too slow, but that is a criticism of its timetable. We need evidence against the minister's claim about what planting trees contributes.
- E
The commitment concerns carbon dioxide. Trees don't have to absorb every other warming gas to help with that particular commitment. E shows why tree planting might not address all of global warming, which is broader than the claim we're testing.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.