PrepTest 150, Section 2, Question 16
Environment minister: Many countries have signed an international(45 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AA country should(12 more words not shown)
- BIt is more(19 more words not shown)
- CA country should(24 more words not shown)
- DWhen deciding whether(22 more words not shown)
- EIf a policy(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Which matters more here: cleaner oceans or economic growth?
My first question about an international agreement is whether it will accomplish anything. Signing a document isn't the same as cleaning up the water. But the minister grants that conformity would probably reduce pollution significantly, so the stated objection isn't that the agreement's goal would go unmet. It is the economic cost of pursuing that goal.
We have a tradeoff. Perhaps cleaner oceans are worth slower growth; perhaps maintaining growth matters more. The prediction that both effects would occur doesn't by itself settle what the country should do.
What we’re looking for
To justify the recommendation against signing, we need a priority. I'd look for a principle saying economic growth matters more than the environmental benefit the minister has acknowledged.
Working the answers
- A
We haven't established that the agreement is unlikely to achieve its goal. The minister says conformity would probably produce a significant reduction in pollution. We don't know whether all the needed conformity will occur, but that uncertainty doesn't establish A's condition that the agreement is unlikely to work. The minister's actual objection concerns the cost of a potentially effective agreement.
- BCorrect
This gives the minister the priority the argument needs. If maintaining growth in one's own country matters more than reducing ocean pollution, the predicted economic cost becomes a reason to reject the agreement despite its environmental benefit. B helps justify choosing growth over cleaner oceans instead of merely listing both consequences.
- C
No better means of reducing ocean pollution has been identified. Another approach might exist, but we aren't told that a better one is likely possible. C would help an argument based on such an alternative; it doesn't connect the economic concern we actually have to the recommendation.
- D
Considering an effect isn't the same as deciding it outweighs another effect. The minister already mentions harm to the country's economy and to other countries' economies. Even after considering all of that harm, someone might decide cleaner oceans are worth the cost. D tells us what to include in the decision, but B tells us which competing concern takes priority.
- E
This addresses a policy with environmental benefits and little risk of reduced growth. Our agreement comes with a probable reduction in growth, so it doesn't fit that description. And a reason to implement a policy with both advantages doesn't automatically tell us what to do when the advantages conflict.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.