PrepTest 156, Section 2, Question 12
Politician: Tightening air quality standards that regulate industrial(59 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AGovernmental policy should(10 more words not shown)
- BThe extent to(21 more words not shown)
- CGovernmental policy should(23 more words not shown)
- DGovernmental policy should(19 more words not shown)
- EIf one lacks(29 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If tighter standards make factories leave, that could cost jobs. But cleaner air could also be worth something. The mere fact that a policy has an economic cost doesn't settle whether we should adopt it; we need to consider the tradeoff.
We could also investigate whether factories would really relocate or find it cheaper to meet the new standards. Here, though, the politician takes relocation as a consequence, so the next question is whether that cost is worth accepting.
The politician acknowledges the environmental benefit. The claim is that there isn't enough evidence showing that the decreased pollution would compensate for the lost jobs. Notice what that does and doesn't establish: we haven't shown the change is worthwhile, but we also haven't shown it isn't worthwhile.
Why should uncertainty mean keeping the current policy?
What we’re looking for
We might want to investigate further before deciding. The politician instead moves from 'not enough evidence of a worthwhile tradeoff' to 'don't raise the standards.' For a principle that justifies that move, I'd want a rule requiring convincing evidence of improvement before changing policy. That would explain why the missing evidence favors leaving the current standards in place.
Working the answers
- A
Encouraging industrial growth is a different goal from retaining the current standards because the benefits of changing them haven't been established. We aren't told that leaving these standards alone will grow key industries. A also doesn't explain why uncertainty about the tradeoff should settle the policy decision.
- B
Public willingness to accept a policy isn't discussed. The politician weighs reduced pollution against lost jobs, not how popular a change would be. A rule making public acceptance the only factor cannot justify this reasoning without facts about that acceptance.
- CCorrect
Compelling evidence that a change has better consequences is now required before altering government policy. The politician says the available evidence does not establish that the pollution benefit would compensate for the job losses. Under C's rule, that missing evidence means the change shouldn't be made.
We still don't have to prove that tighter standards would be worse. The rule places the burden on showing that changing policy would be better, and the stated evidence doesn't meet that burden.
- D
This tells us to change policy when both changing and retaining it have benefits and costs. That points toward change in a tradeoff situation. The politician's conclusion is to keep the standards as they are, so D doesn't supply the needed justification.
- E
This says to assume that an uncertain consequence will occur. But the missing rule concerns what decision to make when the overall advantage of a policy change is unproved. E doesn't tell us to retain the current policy in that situation. Don't confuse assuming an outcome with establishing a rule for what the government should do.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.