Q16 - Chlorofluorocarbons are the best possible

[alovitt]

This question seemed to require more speculation than other MSS questions I've seen, but anyway I was stuck between B and E, and I picked B. My thought process was this: At first glance, B seemed to be a bigger leap, especially with the "radically." But E says "greater contribution" which seems quite strong as well. I was thinking at least one of two things will probably happen (my pre-phrase)... a replacement solvent that is at least as good as the Chlorofluorocarbons but meets standards or the engines need to be changed so they don't need to have their sensors cleaned in the first place, but will meet standards. So, my pre-phrase really didn't help in the end.

Chlorofluorocarbons are the "best" available, and do the job. So why would something "better" replace them? I understand this isn't a MBT question, so it still works. Now after writing all this out, I am wondering if E is right because the "something other" is so broad that it could include an engine redesign but B is too specific? Still, could someone please explain the "relatively greater contribution" part of E? That really struck me as being too extreme.

[timmydoeslsat]

As you have noticed, this is not a must be true question, so you knew going into the answer choices that we are hunting for a statement that has support.

You are down to the 2 most appropriate ones in my opinion.

For an inference question, we like to see very small language.

- Some, may, might, not all, etc..

We are also given information in the question stem that states cars continue to meet emission standards.

For choice B, do we have support that car engines will be radically redesigned to get rid of the cleaning idea? I know that chlorofluorocarbons are the best at cleaning. It would be a bit strong to suggest that we totally scrap the idea of cleaning.

For choice E:

Something other than the cleansers for electronic ignition sensors will make a relatively stronger contribution to meeting standards than at present.

This has support.

We know that chloros were the best and that it contributed to automakers meeting standards. We know that chloros are going to be taken away.

If it is the case that the cars are still meeting standards, we need something to "step its game up." At the moment, if you took away the chloros, it appears the automakers are not going to meet the standards.

And we know the cleaner we use in place of it, if we do use it, still will not meet the challenge. It is not as good as the chloro. Even if we use the next best thing, we would not be meeting the standard.

So if we are meeting the standard, something at the present will have to make a greater contribution in relation to what its doing now.

That is very small language, not extreme at all.

No support at all for radical redesign in choice B.

[alovitt]

Thanks, I misinterpreted E which is why I thought it was extreme, but now I see that it's actually much better than B. Silly mistake.

[anjelica.grace]

I don't understand why (D) is wrong. Can someone help explain?

If CFCs are the "best possible solvents," then does it not necessarily follow that the solvents developed to replace CFC will be less effective than the CFCs themselves?

Am I missing something?

[timmydoeslsat]

I don't understand why (D) is wrong. Can someone help explain?

If CFCs are the "best possible solvents," then does it not necessarily follow that the solvents developed to replace CFC will be less effective than the CFCs themselves?

Am I missing something?

The issue is that answer choice D is stating that the replacement solvents are only marginally less effective. We do not have any support for it being marginal.

If the standards are becoming more strict while the very thing you were using that was contributing significantly to you passing is taken away, you must be having something else contribute more than it did. You are not going to be able to do better than the ch-carbons. So something is going to have to make up that gap.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great discussion guys!!!

I'd like to walk through this one as well...

We are asked to find an answer choice that is Most Strongly Supported by the information in the stimulus and question stem:

1. Chlorofluorocarbons have contributed significantly to automakers' ability to meet emission standards.
2. Automakers will need to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons.
3. Automakers were still able to meet more stringent emission standards.

If the chlorofluorocarbons were a contributing factor in meeting the emissions standards and they are phased out of the process, something else must have allowed auto makers to continue to mee the more stringent emissions standards - best expressed in answer choice (E).

Incorrect Answers

(A) is too specific. This might be one explanation for why the auto makers were able to meet the new standards, but is not an explanation that is supported anywhere in the information.
(B) is too specific. Same as the previous answer choice.
(C) is too specific. Same as the previous answer choices.
(D) is again too specific. We don't know that there will be solvents used to replace the chlorofluorocarbons. Maybe the emissions standards were met using some other strategy, maybe even the one outline in answer choice (B)!

[rgrijalb]

can a lsat geek please address the following problem with (E)?
I don't understand why the answer employed "something other than the cleaners" since is it not possible that we use cleaner #2 (second best), thus cleaner #2 would be able to"make a relatively greater contribution to meeting emission standards than at present" but would not be covered under (E)'s language of "something other than the cleaners" since it is a cleaner.

[MK597]

can a lsat geek please address the following problem with (E)?
I don't understand why the answer employed "something other than the cleaners" since is it not possible that we use cleaner #2 (second best), thus cleaner #2 would be able to"make a relatively greater contribution to meeting emission standards than at present" but would not be covered under (E)'s language of "something other than the cleaners" since it is a cleaner.

Before we dive into the choices, quick pointers in the passage.

It said CFC is the "BEST" possible solvent. It precludes any other solvents (even in the future) from doing the job better than CFC. Therefore, what we
need is something that goes beyond simply substituting solvents, since mere substitution with same capacity solvent (again, greater capacity is
impossible as far as solvent goes because of BEST) will not increase efficiency.

A. More stringent, then automakers will cooperate more. So what? That does not tell us anything as to how automakers would be able to meet the new
standard without CFC, which is the best engine cleaner possible. Cooperation does not necessarily lead to cleaner burning car (which is exactly
what we need).

B. Car engines will be redesigned so as to not need any engine cleaners. Yes, it would help. But still does not answer the question as to whether this would result in cleaner burning car to meet the higher standard. Perhaps CFC completely eradicates all emissions related to engines and doing B would
result in only equal level with before.

C. There will be a shift towards smaller cars with greater fuel efficiency. This is just out there, without much relevance to what we are looking for.
Switching the car the type of car one makes will not change the emission standards. Most likely, the emission standard will be different for
different engine capacity.

D. A replacement solvent will do a slightly worse job than CFC. This also cannot be the answer since we need something that does the job better than
CFC.

E. Whatever it may be, something other than cleaners would make greater contribution than did CFC. Though this seems far-fetched, this is what we are
looking for. It meets all that is required by the passage and still could be true.
1. This WILL result in less emission than using CFC (more stringent cleared).
2. This DOES NOT use CFC.