Q1 - The quantity and type of pollution

[smiller]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Premise:
penalty for polluting is severe

Conclusion:
if stronger evidence is not discovered or the polluter does not admit responsibility, we can't be certain enough of the polluter's identity to justify imposing the penalty

Answer Anticipation:
The central idea in the conclusion is that we have to justify the penalty. Specifically, we must be sure that we're penalizing the person who actually caused the pollution. This all seems pretty sensible. However, we aren't just looking at the conclusion itself. What we have to justify, in this case, is that the severity of the penalty gives us a reason to draw this conclusion. A correct answer might state, "if a penalty is severe, imposing it is only justified if we are certain that we are penalizing the correct party."

Correct Answer:
(A)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This is the correct answer. It tells us that the more severe the penalty is, the more certain we must be. This doesn't completely guarantee the conclusion, but it does strengthen the argument, which is all we need.

(B) This is out of scope. We aren't debating how severe the penalty should be. The argument accepts that the penalty is severe, and makes a conclusion about the effect of that severity.

(C) This is out of scope for the same reason as (B). We aren't debating how severe the penalty should be.

(D) This is also out of scope. We aren't debating how likely it is that someone will come forward and admit to polluting the river. The conclusion is about whether or not we are justified in penalizing someone if no one comes forward and confesses.

(E) This is out of scope for the same reason as (B) and (C). We aren't debating how severe the penalty should be.

Takeaway/Pattern: Justifying the reasoning in an argument means strengthening the link between the premise and conclusion. These questions aren't asking you to decide if the conclusion is reasonable on it's own; you need to consider the premise, and whether or not it fully supports the conclusion.

#officialexplanation

[ch3014]

I am surprised that this question is marked is very easy. Can any instructor explain why answer choice E is wrong?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Question Type
Strengthen (principle)

Stimulus
The argument concludes that without further evidence we cannot be sufficiently certain to justify imposing the penalty. Why? Because the penalty is so severe.

Correct Answer
This suggests that the severity of the penality incluences the level of certainty that is sufficient in justifying a penalty. Best expressed in answer chioce (A).

Answer Choices
(B) is out of scope. This is about how severe a penalty should be, but we're interested in how certain one should be.

(C) is out of scope. This is about how severe a penalty should be, but we're interested in how certain one should be.

(D) is out of scope. This is about how likely it is the perpretator will come forward, but we're interested in how certain one should be about the who the perprator is.

(E) is out of scope. This is about how severe a penalty should be, but we're interested in how certain one should be.