PrepTest 158, Section 4, Question 17
Mateo: Global warming has caused permafrost to melt(37 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AAny industry has(17 more words not shown)
- BManufacturers should be(15 more words not shown)
- CWhen the use(31 more words not shown)
- DAny industry manufacturing(21 more words not shown)
- EAn industry that(33 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The villagers have to move, and that costs money. But why does the bill belong, at least partly, to the car industry?
Automobile pollution contributes to global warming, which caused the permafrost to melt. That connects cars to the problem. It doesn't yet supply a rule about who should pay. What about the oil companies supplying the fuel? What about other industries contributing to warming? Those questions don't make the automotive industry innocent; they show why a contribution to a problem and a duty to compensate need to be connected.
What we’re looking for
The principle question asks us to support Mateo's recommendation. I'd look for a rule saying that an industry whose products contribute to costly harm should help cover that harm. The industry needn't be the sole cause. The passage calls automobile pollution a major contributor, so the rule needs to work with a contribution rather than require exclusive responsibility.
Working the answers
- A
This rule requires damage that the industry should have known would result. The passage doesn't establish that the automotive industry should have foreseen this damage. A might help if we had that additional fact, but it adds a requirement our evidence doesn't satisfy.
- B
Minimizing harm when making products is a different obligation from paying for damage those products have already helped cause. The industry could have duties about future manufacturing while still disputing the relocation bill. B doesn't supply the needed compensation rule.
- C
This restricts when governments should be required to contribute: not unless manufacturers are required to contribute too. But we aren't told that a government must pay. Without that additional claim, this rule doesn't establish a payment obligation for the automotive industry.
- DCorrect
The automotive industry manufactures cars; using cars produces pollution; that pollution contributes to warming and the costly damage to these villages. D connects those facts with liability for the resulting damage. It supports requiring the industry to help pay for relocation.
“Any damage” may sound broader than we need. That's okay here. We're asked which principle would help justify the conclusion if accepted, not which principle has already been proved. A broad rule can cover this particular case even if it also covers many others.
- E
This makes a general obligation to pay for all warming damage a requirement for paying these communities. It doesn't tell us that the industry has that general obligation. Adding a condition that must be met before requiring payment doesn't establish that payment should be required here.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.