Q11 - Activist: Accidents at the Three Mile

[hyewonkim89]

Hi MLSAT,

I was down to (B) and (C) and luckily got this question right, but wanted to make sure I know why (C) is wrong.

I eliminated (C) because if the new method were (let's say 10 times) more expensive than the nuclear plants, it would be difficult to carry out the new method and plants may decide not to do so.

But for (B), it has nothing to do with the differences between nuclear plants and the new technology. And that's why I picked (B).

Will someone comment on this?

Thanks in advance!

[christine.defenbaugh]

I like the way you're thinking hyewonkim89!

Let's break this question down from the top. These questions might be considered Strengthen/Weaken questions - something is relevant to the determination if it might tip the scales one way or the other!

PREMISE
Nuclear power is dangerous
new tech = turns sewage sludge to oil
CONCLUSION (HOPE)
Dispense w/ nuclear power
Meet energy needs w/ less environmental harm than current harm

Anything that could make that hope more or less practicable we can eliminate.

(B) has no impact. We don't care whether the sewage sludge creation process has been improving from the past til now, we care about what might happen in the future.

The fact that it does not address a difference specifically between nuclear and sewage sludge oil does not make it automatically irrelevant. Any significant negative mark on the use of sewage sludge oil, for instance, would be relevant - whether or not it was explicitly noted as a difference between the two energy sources.



The Relevant Ones
(A) If the current practice of dumping sewage sludge does environmental damage, then using that sludge for oil instead of dumping would have a positive effect on the environmental situation, thus making the hope for a nuclear-free, environmentally-friendly future that much more likely.

(C) If the cost of creating sewage sludge oil are crazy high, and not economically sustainable, it makes the whole plan a lot less likely to get off the ground. Note that we don't have to assume any particular plants would be less likely to create it, just people in general.

(D) If the burning of the sewage sludge oil produced harmful greenhouse gases, then the dream of an environmentally-friendly tomorrow would be significantly less likely, even if the sludge is installed as the energy source of tomorrow.

(E) If producing the sewage sludge oil produces extremely dangerous by products, that will make it less likely people will be thrilled about embracing it as the new power source.


Great thought process, hyewonkim89! Keep up the good work!

[asafezrati]

Assuming that the improvement mentioned in answer choice B would occur in the future (instead of the past) - could it be relevant ot the evaluation?
I don't see any mentions of seperation of sewage components. Maybe it doesn't affect producing this new oil?

[zdlsat]

Like hyewonkim89, I was able down to B and C.
However, for C, premises and conclusion says nothing about economical consideration, so I assume cost is not one of considerations.
From common sense, I know yes, cost is one thing need to be considered, and B seems not really relevant. That's why I choose B.

Shouldn't we take common sense into LSAT questions?

[erikwoodward10]

Like hyewonkim89, I was able down to B and C.
However, for C, premises and conclusion says nothing about economical consideration, so I assume cost is not one of considerations.
From common sense, I know yes, cost is one thing need to be considered, and B seems not really relevant. That's why I choose B.

Shouldn't we take common sense into LSAT questions?

C is relevant because we can assume that if we can "dispense altogether with nuclear power" (as stated in the stimulus) that the option would probably have to be economically feasible. Knowing the answer to this question at least helps us strengthen or weaken the argument, which is what we are looking for (and eliminating answer choices that do this).

[Artyuchang]

it makes sense B is the right answer, but, the reason I got C was due to it was the only answer talked without addressing environment, the conclusion was stating in a way that better protects the ENVIRONMENT, C was talking about the cost, B had something to do with environment at least, why?

[lai.heidar]

I had a hard time trying to figure out why B is better than C so someone please let me know if my thought process is correct

B is least relevant because there's no reason to turn sludge to water because the nuclear power plant needs oil instead of water. So basically, water has no impact on generating power.

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm totally confused by your statement that "nuclear plants need oil, not water".

I think you might be confused about the paragraph overall.

SOCIETY needs oil (or at least uses oil). We use it to produce energy.
We can otherwise use nuclear power to produce energy.
We can use solar radiation, wind, hydroelectric, or apparently even sewage sludge to produce energy.

The author is saying "let's hope that sludge + solar/wind/hydro would provide society with enough energy that we don't need to use fossil fuels as an energy source.

(B) is talking about where we get our sewage sludge from.
Apparently we start with sewage and then separate it into clean water vs. remaining sewage sludge.

(B) is saying, "Does it matter whether we've gotten better at separating the water from the sludge over the past 20-40 years?"

Not really. Sure if we've gotten better, then maybe that's some room for optimism about using sewage sludge as a source of energy.

But if we haven't gotten better (if we've just stayed the same), that doesn't pose any problem. As far as we know, we already have the means to derive energy from sewage sludge. We have no reason to think that the process of extracting the sludge from the sewage is lacking or need of improvement.

Meanwhile, with (C), if using sewage sludge as an energy source is economically sustainable, that strengthens the argument.

And if using it is NOT economically sustainable (it's unsustainable), that would badly weaken the argument.

Hope this helps.

[JenniferK632]

I assumed this was an Evaluate question. Could you explain why it's a Strengthen/Weaken?

[Laura Damone]

Please forgive the delayed response here. We had a technical issue that caused this post to get buried!

You're correct: this is an Evaluate question. Specifically, it's an Evaluate EXCEPT question. We categorize these alongside Strengthen and Weaken because an answer that is helpful in evaluating an argument will strengthen if it is answered in one way and weaken if it is answered the opposite way.

Hope this helps!