Q10 - Albert: The government has proposed

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken (to counter Erin's argument is to undermine it)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Proposed regulations (to decrease PAHs in auto emissions) would save thousands of lives.
Evidence: PAHs are blamed for 10,000 premature deaths each year from lung and heart disesase.

Answer Anticipation:
How could we argue that decreasing PAH's would NOT save thousands of lives? It helps to have the context of Albert's ideas, that PAHs are SUSPECTED of causing cancer, but a causal link has never been proven. So although scientists "blame" PAHs for 10,000 deaths, maybe they're wrong? Or maybe the proposed regulations wouldn't have any effect on these lung and heart disease cases. Perhaps PAHs come from multiple sources, and eliminating them from auto exhaust wouldn't have a significant effect on the PAHs that are causing lung and heart disease.

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) It doesn't matter how the auto industry "feels". We're debating the truth value of whether these regulations would ultimately save lives.

(B) Erin doesn't need PAH to be linked to OTHER diseases as well. If she's right about lung and heart disease, then there are plenty of deaths to be averted.

(C) Sure, but who's to say that auto usage will decline?

(D) Yes! This helps our case. We can argue that "these regulations will NOT save thousands of lives" because they target auto exhaust, when the PRIMARY source of the PAH problem is actually tire wear.

(E) This doesn't do anything. Again, Erin brought forth considerations that PAHs are also linked to lung and heart disease deaths, so even if we take PAH/cancer completely off the table, Erin's argument still needs to be considered.

Takeaway/Pattern: When we're evaluating a Plan of Action, we want to think about how it would fail to achieve its goal. Common themes for correct answers could be "it isn't feasible to enact … it depends on the cooperation of people who aren't sufficiently motivated to participate ... it's a partial solution ... it backfires in some unanticipated way ... it fails to treat the main source of the problem." Our correct answer exploits the fact that even if PAHs are a problem, and even if auto exhaust contains PAHs, going after auto exahust PAH is NOT going make a significant difference in addressing the PAH problem., since auto exhaust is not a big source of PAH. This only weakens because the conclusion is promising a significant effect: "saving thousands of lives".

#officialexplanation

[nanagyanewa]

Can someone please explain to me why D is the right answer. I eliminated down to B, D and E but crossed out B because it's out of scope- that is we are concerned with heart and lung diseases and not "other diseases". But i thought E will strengthen Albert's argument but not necessarily undermine Erin's. Is this right?

[cyruswhittaker]

Albert says there's no causal link and that the government proposal to decrease PAH from auto exhaust isn't necessary.

Erin responds by saying that scientists attribute a lot of premature deaths to PAHs.

Rather than attacking Erin's point, he could intelligently say D. By doing this, he allows Erin's point to be correct while at the same time, saying that even if she is correct, the source of the PAHs doesn't come from exhaust: it comes from the wear and tear of tires. And hence, this effectively counters Erin's point while still preserving Albert's conclusion: the proposal targeted towards auto exhaust is unnecessary.

(E) doesn't provide a strong counter because it is irrelevant to Erin's point. She doesn't make any kind of claim about the quantity of substances causing cancer. There could be 2 or there could be a million: the issue here is specifically regarding PAH.

[bbirdwell]

Nice work, Cyrus! Doing my job for me....

Let us know if you still have questions, nanagyanewa, and I'll chime in...

Also, regarding your question about (E) -- I don't think it strengthens Albert's conclusion, because his conclusion is that the regulations are not needed. In a way, it might strengthen his premise that no causal link has been established (PAH is being "considered"), but that doesn't do much for his argument. Evidence is important, but one should always focus on conclusions!

[nanagyanewa]

thanks cyrus! It makes sense now. and thanks to you too bbirdwell.

[jamiejames]

What question type is this?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Strange language in the question stem, huh?! It is language that you'll see in many other questions though as you continue your work on the LSAT.

PT19, S4, Q26 - Sasha: Handwriting analysis should
PT4, S1, Q1 - Rita: The original purpose of
PT47, S3, Q7 - Legislator: To keep our food safe

Interesting though that I searched for language similarly phrased in the question in other questions and look what we found! These all have 2 speakers with the question asking, "how could the first speaker weaken the second speaker's argument?"

[jamiejames]

Strange language in the question stem, huh?! It is language that you'll see in many other questions though as you continue your work on the LSAT.

PT19, S4, Q26 - Sasha: Handwriting analysis should
PT4, S1, Q1 - Rita: The original purpose of
PT47, S3, Q7 - Legislator: To keep our food safe

Interesting though that I searched for language similarly phrased in the question in other questions and look what we found! These all have 2 speakers with the question asking, "how could the first speaker weaken the second speaker's argument?"

Ah so it's a weaken, great thank you! Yeah, usually with the two speakers, you're looking to see what they disagree about (point) or resolve the discrepancy. Tricky LSAT creators

[inesa909]

I have a few questions regarding this question type since I seem to be perpetually getting these kinds of questions wrong and I also struggled a lot with PT21 S3 Q15 which is similar (although it is a strengthen and principle double whammy).

Lets pretend this is a legit LSAT example
A:.....
B:....
Which one of the following, if true, provides A with the strongest counter to B's argument?

Is our task to undermine B's argument or to strengthen A's or is it possibly something else (such as identifying both A and B's conclusions and finding the discrepancies between them)

Any tips for dealing with this ambiguous question type would be tremendously helpful

[tzyc]

Just wanted to double check why the other 3 wrong answers are wrong...
A: It does not matter what most auto manufacturers say...maybe other majority people agree with the regulation
B: Whether it's known or not does not matter...and other than heart and lung disease and cancer is not argued
C: This could strengthen what Erin says...also Albert's point was, no regulation because no causal link is proven. So even PAHs decrease, this does not support what he originally said.

Are these correct?
Thank you

[lsatzen]

Why would (E) not weaken Erin's response?

I understood the dialogue between Albert and Erin as:

Albert: There is no need for such regulations on PAHs, because a causal link between PAHs and cancer has not been established.

Erin: Oh yeah? Scientists also blame PAHs for these other bad things that are due to lung and heart disease. So we do need these regulations -- it would save lives.

Answer choice (E), I thought, was saying something along the lines of:
Nuh uh, PAHs are just one of several potential cancer causing components under suspicion. This might further obscure the issue of establishing a causal link between PAHs and causing cancer. Now there are all these other things cluttering up our research to establish a causal link.

I was under the impression that Erin's response was meant to undercut Albert's premise that a causal link has not been established; by saying since scientists blame PAHs for causing these premature deaths, we can take their word as evidence for there being a causal link.

[lsatzen]

Deleted - figured it out after revisiting the problem.

(E), if interpreted the way above, only strengthens the premise of Albert's argument. But that's all it does. It does not strengthen the reasoning of the argument. Albert's conclusion is that the regulations are not needed, and the only reason he has given is that a causal link between PAHs and cancer has not been established. Albert mistakenly assumes that his support is relevant, but he has failed to make it relevant.

My idea of attacking the question seemed correct, but I misunderstood the application of the answer choice. I wanted to weaken Erin's argument, by strengthening Albert's argument, but (E) just does not do that.

(D) however, clearly weakens Erin's response, because it makes her suggestion less likely to be an effective solution. According to (D), the regulations would reduce PAHs that are emitted via automobile exhaust, but it would overlook the PAHs being released via wear and tear. Exposing the overlooked possibility, that there could be more prominent sources of PAH emissions.

[Puffy Pants]

This question blew my mind! I am glad you mention the weaken. I will work these a weaken. Thank you so much.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Lots of great questions here!

The question stem is a bit different from your classic strengthen/weaken questions, as you all have noticed! Let's circle back to a question question from above:

Is our task to undermine B's argument or to strengthen A's or is it possibly something else (such as identifying both A and B's conclusions and finding the discrepancies between them)

We need to strengthen A's argument in relation to B's argument. Directly weakening B's argument would do the trick! But if we're going to strengthen A's argument, we have to do it with B's argument in mind. Let's break down the cores a bit to see what that means:

ALBERT

PREMISE: Causal link between PAHs and cancer is not proven
CONCLUSION: Regs to decrease the PAHs in car exhaust aren't needed

ERIN

PREMISE: PAHs also cause heart and lung disease
CONCLUSION: These regs would save these lives.

Albert's original argument is that the regulations aren't needed because the 'danger' (cancer) isn't a real or proven danger. Erin's response is to bring up a NEW danger, completely unrelated to cancer (heart and lung disease). It's as if she's saying to Albert "Okay, so what if you're right that PAHs don't cause cancer - they still cause heart and lung disease, which is pretty bad!"

I was under the impression that Erin's response was meant to undercut Albert's premise that a causal link has not been established; by saying since scientists blame PAHs for causing these premature deaths, we can take their word as evidence for there being a causal link.

I think this is where you first when a little off course, lsatzen - Erin's response doesn't address Albert's premise at all! She brings up a NEW danger the PAHs are responsible for, separate from cancer.

Since Erin has introduced this new danger of PAHs, Albert has a few ways to respond to support his original argument. He could either show that 1) this new danger (lung/heart disease) isn't actually caused by PAHs either, or 2) that even if this is a danger, the regs won't protect against it.

(D) however, clearly weakens Erin's response, because it makes her suggestion less likely to be an effective solution. According to (D), the regulations would reduce PAHs that are emitted via automobile exhaust, but it would overlook the PAHs being released via wear and tear. Exposing the overlooked possibility, that there could be more prominent sources of PAH emissions.

Now you've got it! With this, Albert could say "Okay, you're right, PAHs are evil incarnate. These regs are still dumb though, because they won't actually do anything about the majority of the PAHs cars are releasing."

Let's take another look at (E):

(E), if interpreted the way above, only strengthens the premise of Albert's argument. But that's all it does. It does not strengthen the reasoning of the argument. Albert's conclusion is that the regulations are not needed, and the only reason he has given is that a causal link between PAHs and cancer has not been established. Albert mistakenly assumes that his support is relevant, but he has failed to make it relevant.

My idea of attacking the question seemed correct, but I misunderstood the application of the answer choice. I wanted to weaken Erin's argument, by strengthening Albert's argument, but (E) just does not do that.

I'd take this one step further - even if (E) did strengthen the reasoning in Albert's original argument, it wouldn't address Erin's totally valid point that PAHs are causing other, non-cancer bad things. If she's right, then it just doesn't matter whether cancer is in play or not, the PAHs are connected to death. Albert has to deal with that PAH-lung/heart disease connection - either by denying it, or by showing that the regulations won't do anything about it.


As for the other incorrect answer choices:

Just wanted to double check why the other 3 wrong answers are wrong...
A: It does not matter what most auto manufacturers say...maybe other majority people agree with the regulation
[LSATGeek comment: It actually doesn't matter what ANYONE agrees with or disagrees with! This argument is about whether the regs are needed, not what people want/prefer/feel/believe!]
B: Whether it's known or not does not matter...and other than heart and lung disease and cancer is not argued
[LSATGeek comment: Albert could prove that PAHs don't cause any other disease in the universe, but so long as Erin is right that they cause heart/lung disease, PAHs are looking bad]
C: This could strengthen what Erin says...also Albert's point was, no regulation because no causal link is proven. So even PAHs decrease, this does not support what he originally said.
[LSATGeek comment: I'm not sure how this would strengthen Erin's argument. The real problem here is that it's a conditional statement. If we knew that auto use was set to decline substantially next year, then perhaps the regs wouldn't be necessary because auto exhaust (and PAHs) will be reduced even without those regs. But this answer doesn't tell us that auto usage WILL decline, it just says that IF if does then PAHs will decrease. That's awesome, but who knows if auto usage will ever decline at all?!]

Some great thinking in this thread!

[arya.bhaskar1987]

Hi,

Actually I felt Erin's conclusion is "So the proposed regulations would save thousands of lives". Albert tries to undermine that using (D), i.e., saying that most PAHs are due to wear and tear and reasons not addressed by the proposed regulations. However, even if most of the PAHs (let's say 51% of the units) are due to wear and tear, Erin could counter saying the other 49% would/could still be results of auto exhausts. And with the new regs, 49% of the total PAH units could still be removed, which would still result in saving 4900 lives , i.e., thousands of lives.
So (D) won't end up undermining the conclusion of Erin.
In such case, the credited response is (D) because is the logically the 'strongest' counter or am I missing something?
Would be grateful if Noah/Patrick or any other instructor could respond.

Thanks,

[tommywallach]

Instructors don't respond to non-students/non-book owner posts (your name is in orange, while those people are in blue/green). But other students might!

-t