Q15 - Environmentalist: An increased number

[WaltGrace1983]

This is a necessary assumption question.

Industry refused to take action
→
National government must regulate industry safety standards
+
(Govt. has to at least require double hulls and assume financial responsibility)

This is a tricky question to pre phrase for the simple reason that the answers could address one of two potential parts of the conclusion. Rather than having a simple conclusion, it also includes a little tidbit about how the government should act. The argument is saying they should modify the oil tankers / they should assume financial responsibility. How does this fit in? How could the right answer address this? Well maybe the argument could be assuming that these modifications of the oil tankers and assumption of financial responsibility would be something new, something that isn't occurring now. This all just seems a little far stretched for the LSAT though. The point is, I really think it is necessary to just think about the role of this sentence because being Q15 of the test, it is highly likely that the LSAT will throw you a curveball NA question that doesn't get the most "obvious" gap.

Let's talk about the more "obvious" gap though. This gap is something that we seem time and time again on the LSAT. After drilling 100+ NA questions, the word "must" should sound an alarm in your head. The argument is basically saying that because one thing won't happen, this other thing absolutely must happen; there is no other secondary option and this must be the only option. What is the problem with that? For those of you who have taken basic philosophy, this problem is known as the False Dilemma Fallacy. So what is the argument assuming? The argument is assuming that there are in fact no other options! This could be something that the answer choices talk about so now we are appropriately armed to attack!

(A) We immediately get at what I think is going to be the correct answer. It says that there is "only" these two options: the industry or the national govt. regulation. Is the argument assuming this? Absolutely. If we check the negation to find that it would say that there actually are other options, then the link between the conclusion and the premise falls apart; why would we conclude that it must be the national govt. who must take action if there are other entities that can take action?

(B) We are not concerned with saving money. We are concerned with saving the environment. We don't need to assume anything about how much money this will cost or won't cost because this has no bearing on the link between the premise and the conclusion.

(C) Nope. They don't need to be replaced or repaired. The argument is merely stating that the govt. "has to at least" modify the tankers.

(D) We don't care about how they developed. The regulations could be developed by a process of negotiation between clowns and magicians. Why don't we care about how they are developed? We don't care because it has nothing to do with the link between the conclusion and the premise. Look at the core again and you'll see what I mean.

(E) This is unsupported by the argument because, like (B), financial considerations just simply aren't mentioned here.

Wheewwwww. I am feeling lucky they didn't ask about that second part of the conclusion. Does anyone have any idea of what the LSAT could have assumed regarding that?

[echo_rainkey]

I got the correct answer A.

But I cannot help thinking that answer A is actually a sufficient assumption because it says the only two effective sources ...

Can anyone help me out?

Thanks!