PrepTest 146, Section 2, Question 21
A local marsh would need to be drained(50 more words not shown)
The principle underlying the argument(14 more words not shown)
- AA new highway(45 more words not shown)
- BDefective products can(40 more words not shown)
- CA laboratory safety(53 more words not shown)
- DBuilding the new(49 more words not shown)
- EBuilding a light(36 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could draining the marsh damage the city's water supply? That's a reason to be cautious, but we don't yet know what this particular marsh does. Saying marshes often help purify groundwater leaves room for this one to be different.
The author responds to that uncertainty by recommending a pause: don't allow the office complex until the marsh's role has been assessed. The argument doesn't establish that draining it will cause harm. It treats the possible harm, together with the missing assessment, as enough reason to hold off.
What we’re looking for
We need another argument using that principle. I'd look for a proposed action, a possible harmful consequence that hasn't been adequately checked, and a recommendation to wait. Matching the environmental subject matter won't be enough; the reason for delaying has to match too.
Working the answers
- A
The environmental assessment sounds familiar, but the reasoning is different. This assessment is required and would cost more than the highway's expected economic benefit. The author rejects the project on that cost-benefit basis. Our argument instead pauses a project because an important risk hasn't been assessed. It doesn't say the cost of investigating exceeds the project's benefit.
- BCorrect
The new appliances are the proposed office complex; possible defects and their costly consequences are the possible harm to the water supply. Thorough testing is missing, just as an assessment of the marsh is missing. The recommendation is to hold off on bringing the appliances to market now. Both arguments use an unchecked risk of harm as a reason to postpone action.
- C
The testing hasn't had the uninterrupted week it requires, so the report isn't ready. That explains why a report shouldn't be released yet. But our conclusion isn't simply that an investigation remains incomplete; it is that a separate action should be blocked while a potential harm is investigated. C never makes the corresponding recommendation to delay selling or using the grill.
- D
This compares two routes with known environmental consequences and recommends the one that avoids harming a wilderness area. The original doesn't choose between two routes based on established damage. It recommends waiting because the relevant effect hasn't been established. D has a preference between alternatives, rather than a pause for assessment.
- E
This acknowledges possible costs and delays but recommends proceeding because the alternative is intolerable congestion. That weighs a risk against a reason to act. It doesn't use the unchecked risk as a reason to pause, which is the principle we need.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.