PrepTest 152, Section 1, Question 20
Politician: Our government's Ministry of the Environment issues(59 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AIf there was(32 more words not shown)
- BScientific assessments should(19 more words not shown)
- CIndividuals and organizations(12 more words not shown)
- DA government ministry(22 more words not shown)
- EThe government ministry(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An assessment can sometimes be wrong and still be useful. Is the risk of error enough to say the new ministry shouldn't issue any?
At first, I might question the politician's allegation against the Environment Ministry. But its inaccurate assessments are given as a premise here. The argument uses that problem to warn against the new Health Ministry, which will also face political pressure. We should assess that reasoning rather than deny the stated problem.
Suppose, just as an illustration, a source is right 90 percent of the time and wrong 10 percent. Calling attention to its errors doesn't by itself decide whether to stop it from reporting altogether. We'd need a standard for how confident it should be in its work before publishing.
What we’re looking for
For a supporting principle, I'd look for that link: insufficient assurance of accuracy is a reason not to issue scientific assessments.
Working the answers
- A
We aren't told there was no need for health assessments before the ministry was formed. Nor is the politician's objection that creating a ministry cannot create a need. A condition about an earlier absence of need doesn't connect political pressure and inaccuracy to the recommendation against publishing.
- BCorrect
This makes strong reason to believe an assessment is accurate a requirement for issuing it. The experience of the Environment Ministry gives the politician a reason to doubt that a new ministry facing political pressure can meet that standard. B thus links the accuracy concern to the recommendation. It strengthens the reasoning without independently proving that the two ministries must respond identically to pressure.
- C
This tells people and organizations not to pressure ministries. The conclusion tells the Health Ministry not to issue assessments. Those are different recommendations. Even if outside pressure is improper, we still need a rule telling the ministry what to do when it faces that pressure.
- D
This says successful resistance to pressure would justify issuing assessments. It doesn't say resistance is the only situation in which issuing them is justified. We also haven't established that this ministry definitely cannot resist. To support withholding assessments through a failed requirement, we'd need a rule making that requirement necessary, not a rule describing one situation where publication is appropriate.
- E
The ministry ought to resist pressure, but that doesn't tell us whether it will succeed or what to do if accuracy remains doubtful. E addresses how the ministry should handle pressure. It doesn't supply the standard for withholding assessments that the conclusion needs.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.