PrepTest 144, Section 3, Question 3
Editorial: The legislature is considering allowing oil drilling(61 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AThe Cape Simmons(14 more words not shown)
- BThe companies drilling(16 more words not shown)
- CThe editorialist believes(18 more words not shown)
- DThere have been(12 more words not shown)
- EOil drilling is(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Drilling for oil in a nature preserve sounds risky. What about the animals and the land? The supporters have an answer: modern methods will prevent environmental damage. That's a reassuring claim, but I'd want to know whether the methods really are that safe.
The editorial points to Alphin Bay, where drilling began five years ago and the land is now covered with industrial development. I can see why that worries the author. But did they use the same methods there?
Maybe Alphin Bay was drilled using an older, messier process, while Cape Simmons would use new technology that avoids those problems. In that case, the damage at Alphin Bay wouldn't settle what will happen at Cape Simmons. The supporters specifically rely on modern methods, so we need to check whether the editorial's example actually tests that reassurance.
What we’re looking for
To strengthen the editorial, I'd close that gap. Tell us Alphin Bay used the same techniques proposed for Cape Simmons, or that drilling methods haven't meaningfully improved in the last five years. Then the supporters can't brush off Alphin Bay as an example of outdated technology.
Working the answers
- A
How rare the wilderness is doesn't tell us whether drilling will damage it. Cape Simmons could be the last pristine area in the region or one of many, and we'd still need to know what the drilling methods would do. A could make us care more about protecting the preserve without supporting the editorial's claim about the risk.
- B
I don't care what the companies' public relations teams promised. I care what their drilling methods actually did. A company could admit there would be damage, make no prediction, or promise there would be none. None of that tells us whether the experience at Alphin Bay is a good comparison for the proposed drilling at Cape Simmons.
- C
This tells us what the editorialist thinks should be allowed. It doesn't establish what would happen. Someone could believe that drilling should be banned unless it's harmless and still be mistaken about whether a particular drilling method causes damage. We need evidence about the method, not another statement of the author's views.
- DCorrect
Drilling methods haven't changed significantly since drilling began at Alphin Bay. That answers our concern about the five-year gap: we can't simply assume the earlier damage came from an obsolete process that modern techniques have replaced. Alphin Bay now gives us a stronger reason to doubt the promise that drilling at Cape Simmons would cause no damage.
- E
Other industrial activities don't establish that oil drilling caused the damage. Perhaps some of the sprawl came from those activities instead. And even if another industry caused more damage than drilling, that wouldn't make drilling harmless. We're asking whether drilling poses a risk, not whether it's the worst activity at Alphin Bay. E doesn't strengthen the comparison we need.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.