PrepTest 159, Section 1, Question 6
Prominent government officials have denied that their policies(49 more words not shown)
The argument relies on which(5 more words not shown)
- AWithout the urging(18 more words not shown)
- BThe prominent government(19 more words not shown)
- CThe mining companies(25 more words not shown)
- DThe government is(12 more words not shown)
- EIf the ban(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The government changed a rule, and hundreds of miles of streams were buried in mining waste. That certainly gives us something more concrete than a bare accusation about environmental damage.
Still, I want to keep track of whom we're blaming. Are the officials making this denial responsible for the policy the government adopted? An official could have opposed a policy that nevertheless passed. And the author needs the destruction of these vital streams to count as serious environmental degradation. Those are connections worth watching as we read.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption the argument relies on. We aren't required to find a statement that fixes every possible gap. We need a connection the author needs in order to use this example against the officials' denial. Let's see which part of the reasoning the choices address.
Working the answers
- A
This tells us why the government lifted the ban. But the argument concerns whether the resulting policy produced environmental damage. Even if the government would have repealed the ban without the mining companies' urging, the repeal could still have contributed to the destruction. The argument doesn't need this particular explanation of what motivated the government.
- B
The officials could sincerely believe their policies caused no serious damage and still be mistaken. The author challenges what they claim, not whether they honestly believe it. We don't need to accuse them of lying to argue that their denial is wrong.
- C
The companies that lobbied for the change need not be the companies that used it. Suppose one set of companies urged repeal, and another set then dumped the waste. The policy could still have caused serious damage. Identifying the dumpers as the lobbyists isn't necessary.
- D
A broad comparison of the government's responsiveness to two interest groups doesn't establish what this policy did. The government could generally favor environmentalists and still make this particular change with damaging results. That overall pattern isn't required by the argument.
- ECorrect
This addresses another connection we need: did repealing the ban actually make a substantial difference to the dumping? Imagine that essentially the same amount of waste would have entered the streams even with the ban in place. Then pointing to dumping after repeal wouldn't show that this policy produced the damage.
E says considerably less waste would have entered without repeal. That connects the policy change to the harmful result. Notice how much the answer does not require: there needn't have been zero dumping under the ban, and the repeal needn't be the only cause. The necessary point is that the policy made a meaningful difference.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.