PrepTest 155, Section 4, Question 9
Many airlines offer, for a fee, to "offset"(45 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- ASteps that are(22 more words not shown)
- BIf an outcome(20 more words not shown)
- CIf a company(22 more words not shown)
- DMeasures aimed at(18 more words not shown)
- EIf a project(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the extra money lets the project do more? The author says the airline fees don't really offset the emissions from flying because the projects would have gone ahead anyway. I can see the concern: paying into something that was already going to happen may not produce an additional reduction in emissions.
But whether a project happens and how large it becomes are different questions. Imagine a tree-planting project that would have gone ahead without the fees. Additional funding might let it plant more trees. The project would still have existed either way, but the extra money could change its scale and its effects.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a principle that helps justify the author's reasoning. My prediction would address that concern: additional funding doesn't make a difference to the relevant outcome. We want a rule that helps explain why the fees can't take credit for a result that would have happened without them.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns whether trying to reduce harm removes moral responsibility for causing the original harm. The argument concerns whether the fees prevent emissions. A project could produce a real reduction even if the traveler remained morally responsible for the flight, so this rule doesn't establish ineffectiveness.
- BCorrect
This supplies the causal rule the author is using: if the outcome would occur without the action, it isn't a consequence of that action. Apply it here to the fees and the projects that would proceed without them. The fact that the projects reduce emissions doesn't, under this rule, make those reductions a result of paying the fees.
That supports the author's reason for withholding credit from the offset schemes. It isn't a separate factual assurance that every project's size stays unchanged. Our concern about additional activity would still require attention in evaluating the full argument, but B directly supports the inference the author makes from what would happen anyway.
- C
Whether someone deserves moral praise is different from whether an action reduces emissions. We also aren't told that a company or individual gains financially in the relevant way. Even if someone profited, that alone wouldn't establish that the funded activity had no effect.
- D
This tells us when we should take a measure: only when its effectiveness can be demonstrated. It doesn't establish whether these particular schemes are effective. The author concludes that they largely fail to prevent emissions, not merely that travelers should avoid a measure whose effectiveness hasn't been shown.
- E
The argument never identifies the largest source of emissions or says these projects ignore it. A project could address a smaller source and still produce an additional reduction. We need a rule about the effect of funding projects that would happen anyway, not a ranking of emission sources.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.