PrepTest 146, Section 3, Question 11
From 1880 to 2000 Britain's economy grew fivefold,(25 more words not shown)
The claims made above are(8 more words not shown)
- AA decrease in(14 more words not shown)
- BCountries whose economies(17 more words not shown)
- CEconomic growth initially(21 more words not shown)
- DAs the world's(9 more words not shown)
- EEconomic growth always(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The economy got much bigger, but emissions per person ended where they started. That doesn't mean Britain's total emissions stayed the same. If the population grew, the same emissions per person could add up to a larger total.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a generalization that cannot fit these facts. A rule saying economic growth must raise emissions per person would have a problem: Britain gives us growth without that increase. Keep the measure straight, and look for a claim that this example actually contradicts.
Working the answers
- A
Saying that emissions per person never decrease during economic growth leaves room for them to stay the same. That's what the two endpoints show here. We aren't given evidence of a decrease, so we haven't disproved this rule. 'Never goes down' is different from 'must go up.'
- B
We aren't told what laws countries with slow or no growth can afford. Britain's fivefold growth doesn't establish a general relationship between weak growth and the ability to restrict emissions. Even if we knew about a slow-growing period, we'd still need information about the country's finances and laws to contradict B.
- C
This could fit the two endpoints. Emissions per person might initially have risen and later fallen as technologies changed, ending at their original level. The passage gives the 1880 and 2000 figures, not every point between them. C offers a possible path between those endpoints; it isn't ruled out by their being equal.
- D
This concerns total greenhouse-gas emissions increasing with the world's population. Flat emissions per person don't contradict that. For example, if population doubled while each person accounted for the same emissions, total emissions would double too. We also have information about Britain, not the entire world. D isn't disproved by the given comparison.
- ECorrect
This says economic growth always sets off a chain that inevitably increases carbon-dioxide emissions per person. But Britain had substantial economic growth without an increase in that measure between the stated years. That is a counterexample to the claimed inevitability.
We don't need to determine exactly which link failed—whether household income, consumption, or the link to emissions behaved differently. E guarantees the final increase whenever the economy grows, and the facts show a case in which that guaranteed result did not occur.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.