PrepTest 148, Section 1, Question 7
Peraski: Although driving gas-guzzling automobiles produces a greater(65 more words not shown)
The dialogue provides the most(11 more words not shown)
- Adriving a gas-guzzling(12 more words not shown)
- Bspeaking out against(18 more words not shown)
- Cdriving even a(14 more words not shown)
- Done should speak(11 more words not shown)
- Ethere is no(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do you have to do everything right before you can criticize a worse practice? Someone who isn't always kind can still have a reason to say people should treat others better. Likewise, driving a small car instead of cycling doesn't automatically make criticism of a more polluting car worthless.
What we’re looking for
Jackson makes that distinction. Jackson concedes there is room to do better and accepts the charge of hypocrisy, but thinks silence about greater pollution would be worse. Peraski treats exposing that hypocrisy as a reason not to speak out. So for the disagreement, I'd look for whether one's own hypocrisy should prevent that criticism.
Working the answers
- A
This isn't their disagreement. Peraski expressly says gas guzzlers produce more pollution than smaller cars. Jackson's reference to greater sources of pollution is consistent with that distinction. The dispute concerns speaking out against the greater pollution despite one's own behavior.
- B
Jackson doesn't deny the hypocrisy. Jackson says remaining silent would be worse even though speaking would be hypocritical. Peraski also treats the conduct as hypocritical. They differ over what follows from that agreed concern, not over whether it exists.
- C
Neither speaker denies that driving a small car when cycling is possible adds pollution. Peraski uses that fact to challenge the speaker's standing, while Jackson acknowledges the possibility of doing better. We don't have opposing views on the underlying pollution contribution.
- DCorrect
Peraski says small-car drivers who could cycle should not speak against gas guzzlers because that would expose hypocrisy. Jackson says it would be worse not to speak for that reason. Thus Jackson supports speaking out despite the hypocrisy, while Peraski opposes it in the situation described.
- E
They don't establish opposing positions on a claim of complete moral equivalence between the two kinds of driving. Both can recognize a difference in pollution while debating whether an imperfect person should criticize the greater source. Their clear disagreement concerns speaking out, as D states.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.