Q16 - Company Spokesperson: In lieu of

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: We'll reduce air pollution more by buying and disposing of old cars than by redesigning our plants.
Evidence: Our plants account for 4% of air pollution; cars predating 1980 account for 30%.

Answer Anticipation:
How could we argue that redesigning plants would cut air pollution more? Or how could we argue that the plan to buy and dispose of old cars won't reduce air pollution as much as the author thinks?

One thing to consider is what happens once someone gives up their old car -- do they get a new one? How much does that new car contribute to air pollution? We might get rid of all the old cars (that accounted for 30%) and replace them with new cars (that still account for SOME percentage of air pollution).

Another line of objection might be that the company should do the plant redesign, since THAT is completely under their control, while the old car situation is spread out around the whole locality. Even though the old cars represent a bigger share of the air pollution problem, maybe it's hard for a company to make a big dent in that problem, since it would involve finding / contacting so many different car owners and persuading them to sell their cars.

We're basically looking for a potential problem with the plan to buy / dispose of old cars as a means of reducing air pollution.

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) The fact that the # of cars is small actually HELPS the argument. It's easier to locate all those car owners, the less numerous they are. This answer is trying to attract test takers by feeling like, "Oh, so it's NOT that big a problem". But we already know that this 1% of cars accounts for 30% of air pollution, so it still is as big a problem as ever.

(B) We aren't trying to measure the success of this plan based on how it affects the company financially. As it happens, this strengthens from the company's financial point of view. But it's irrelevant to what we're analyzing: Which method would more reduce air pollution?

(C) Yes, this works. The objective of the company's plan was to take those old cars off the road that are accounting for 30% of the air pollution. According to this answer, almost none of the cars the company is buying are actually on the road. If some old car was just sitting in someone's driveway, it wasn't creating any air pollution, so buying it and disposing of it is not reducing air pollution.

(D) This might feel like it's saying, "Why bother going after pre-1980 cars when post-1980 cars account for the same share of air pollution?" 1. There are probably MANY more cars that are post-1980 than pre-1980, so the older cars are, per capita, much bigger sources of pollution. 2. We can't weaken this argument by saying, "What would reduce pollution more than EITHER of your two proposed options is this THIRD option!" The truth value of the conclusion is just ranking Option 1 vs. Option 2. Since neither of those options deals with post-1980 cars, this answer is totally irrelevant.

(E) This does nothing, but it feels more like a strengthener. See? People agree with us. They're not mad at our plant's pollution now that we're doing this awesome car campaign.

Takeaway/Pattern: Ultimately, the 'game' of this problem is that when the author says that "cars that predate 1980 account for 30% of air pollution", he's insinuating that the company is actually buying some of those cars. But the argument never clearly establishes this. Our correct answer exploits that vagueness by giving us a way to see how the company could buy up old cars but NOT reduce air pollution.

#officialexplanation

[mrudula_2005]

Hi,

Just hoping you can confirm my reasoning here as to why (A) is wrong.

Is it wrong because #1, we don't know that the company is buying and disposing of old cards only from "the local area" (as specified in A)

#2, even if the company IS going to buy and dispose of old cars only from the local area (where, according to A, only 1% of the automobiles driven predate 1980), we don't know what percentage of the total pre-1980 automobile population that constitutes (while constituting a small percentage {1%} of cars in the area, these old pre-1980 cars that are being bought still could constitute a large enough portion of the pre-1980 automobile population to account for more than 4% of local air pollution and thereby to be consistent with the spokesperson's conclusion), right?

thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sorry. I think the reasoning goes something more like...

It doesn't matter what percentage of cars predate 1980. Regardless of whether the percent of cars driven in the local area that predate 1980 is only 1% or 50%, those cars contribute 30% of the air pollution. We don't care whether there are 5 cars emitting so much pollution or thousands of cars. It's the amount of pollution that is important, not the number or percentage of total cars that are emitting it.

So the fact that all of the pollution would be coming from just 1% of cars doesn't address the conclusion.

However, it should be obvious that if the company is only buying old cars that would be disposed of anyways, then they're not really reducing pollution. Answer choice (C) tackles this point from one of many possible perspectives, but addresses the point nonetheless.

Does that help clear this up?

[mrudula_2005]

It doesn't matter what percentage of cars predate 1980. Regardless of whether the percent of cars driven in the local area that predate 1980 is only 1% or 50%, those cars contribute 30% of the air pollution. We don't care whether there are 5 cars emitting so much pollution or thousands of cars. It's the amount of pollution that is important, not the number or percentage of total cars that are emitting it.

Oh, very interesting. I think I just initially didn't understand what and how they are saying what they are saying - the key thing was that I missed how the stimulus did mention "local" air pollution. So all of the pre-1980 cars together (no matter how many of them there are or what percentage of the total autos they constitute) make up 30% of local air pollution?

This is a weird argument, though, considering the conclusion. Would another weakener for this one be "The company will buy only 1/10 of the pre-1980 cars in the area (that fraction would make up only 3% of local air pollution while the plant would still account for 4%). ?

Thanks!

[da.chou]

Percentages and numbers. That assumes each pre-1980's car emits the same amount of pollution.

Otherwise, somewhat similar to answer choice A.), 1/10 of the total cars in that area could include maybe a single pollution emitting monster that accounts for 6% out of 30%, or it could also be a 10% of cars that do not run anymore.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Not sure if you meant that each pre-1980's car emits the same amount of pollution is an assumption of the argument or of the answer choice.

You know, I don't think that such an assumption is actually made here either way. Why would we need to assume that each car pollutes exactly the same amount?

[da.chou]

Sorry, I was responding to the other poster's question about another weakener.

[legalrabbithole]

I see (C) as being a weakening statement this way:

the guy says that old cars produce 30% of the pollution.

so, by buying a bunch of old cars, they're going to reduce pollution

but, (C) states that because the company only buys cheap old cars that don't run = none of them are contributing to the pollution problem.

this would debunk the guy's argument because it doesn't matter if they're buying a bunch of old cars since they're not buying the right ones, aka the old cars that are actually contributing to the pollution problem

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I see (C) as being a weakening statement this way:

the guy says that old cars produce 30% of the pollution.

so, by buying a bunch of old cars, they're going to reduce pollution

but, (C) states that because the company only buys cheap old cars that don't run = none of them are contributing to the pollution problem.

this would debunk the guy's argument because it doesn't matter if they're buying a bunch of old cars since they're not buying the right ones, aka the old cars that are actually contributing to the pollution problem

Exactly, nice work!

[melissacrum]

Although I initially thought that "C" was the strongest of the answer choices, I did not choose it because it contained the probability indicator "almost none". This presents the issue that, even if the amount of cars that still run is miniscule, it is possible that their emissions are a substantial portion of the 30% of air pollution. With that possibility in mind, the author may be correct in determining that they will reduce air pollution more by buying old cars than redesigning their plants.

Did anyone else have difficulty with that piece of the answer?

[timmydoeslsat]

Although I initially thought that "C" was the strongest of the answer choices, I did not choose it because it contained the probability indicator "almost none". This presents the issue that, even if the amount of cars that still run is miniscule, it is possible that their emissions are a substantial portion of the 30% of air pollution. With that possibility in mind, the author may be correct in determining that they will reduce air pollution more by buying old cars than redesigning their plants.

Did anyone else have difficulty with that piece of the answer?

That is a valid point you bring up, however we are looking for an answer choice that weakens, not necessarily destroys the argument.

This answer choice is stating that most cars do not run that are being bought by the company.

The argument went from:

- Option A: Redesign plant and reduce pollution by 4%

- Option B: Buy old cars around the area and dispose them.
- Premise of Option B: Old cars account for 30% pollution.

Therefore, Doing B will reduce pollution more than A.

We could weaken this in either of the following ways.

- Make Option A have a bigger impact of air pollution (unlikely to be done by the LSAT in my experience)

- Make Option B take a hit.

[tzyc]

I still do not understand why (C) weaken the argument...
"Because the company pays only scrap metal"...does this mean they break old cars into pieces and buy those scrap metal?
And that means those scrap do not emit any pollution so they cannot reduce pollution...??
And since the other option reduce some pollution, the other option is better?
Is this correct...??
Thank you

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Because the company pays only scrap metal prices, the cars that they buy are ones that don't run! They're not emitting pollution because they're not running!

So, if the company buys a bunch of cars that are not even being driven, how can the company expect the program to reduce air pollution? Answer choice (C) undermines the company spokesperson's argument that the better way to reduce air pollution would be to purchase old cars.

[ericha3535]

I think I can help with those of who are still confused about C.
It's really simple... now that I think about it

Ok, so evidence says the cars that predate 1980 emits hella a lot of pollution.

Therefore, conclusion says buying off OLD CARS would help reducing the pollution.

Try to anticipate why I capitalized such words.

Did you get it?

The argument is simply EQUATING 1970 predated car with old cars.
The latter is much more bigger and broader group than the first.

What does it mean by "old car?" Can it be the one produced in 1980s? perhaps 1990s? Hey they are still old! They are like 20 or 30 years old cars as well.

That's what C is saying: Simply buying off old used cars (perhaps those that are produced in 1980s or 1990s and not necessarily 1970s) that they don't run.
Yeah, buying off cars that ARE NOT predated 1970s wouldn't help. Even if they don't run, who cares? C is implying that those old 1970 cars are still running on the street.
Hope this helps

[levyyun]

Why are we equating "used" with "old"?

And why are we assuming that just because cars don't run, they still don't emit pollution?

I just can't understand how the company paying only scrap metal prices (wherever that came from) for "used" cars weakens the argument.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Why are we equating "used" with "old"?

And why are we assuming that just because cars don't run, they still don't emit pollution?

I just can't understand how the company paying only scrap metal prices (wherever that came from) for "used" cars weakens the argument.

Thanks for posting levyyun!

First, I'm not entirely sure how a car *could* emit significant air pollution if it wasn't running. The LSAT would consider it common knowledge to have some awareness that the vast majority, if not all, of the air pollution caused by cars comes from them burning fuel. That junker sitting up on blocks in your neighbor's yard isn't emitting any significant air pollution because it isn't doing anything that would cause it. It's just sitting there.

Even if it were possible that some tiny weird amount of air pollution were wafting off of cars that don't even run, it would certainly be a tiny, tiny fraction of the overwhelming air pollution caused by cars running. So, if the cars being purchased by the company are those that don't run, even if it somehow managed to reduce air pollution in that teeny, tiny, fractional way, it wouldn't be much at all, and it seems extraordinarily unlikely that this reduction would be greater than the reduction from redesigning the plants.

We don't actually need to equate "used" to "old" in order to process this argument. (C) tells us that the vast majority of the cars sold to the company don't run. On a certain level, I don't really care why this is true, just that it IS true. Don't get too caught up rationalizing why the scrap metal prices mean that most of the cars bought up don't run, or trying to argue with it. The answer choices TELLS YOU that the result is that most of the cars bought don't run - that's the critical piece of information you have to assess. If that's true, what impact does it have on our argument?

If most of the cars bought don't run, that means we are buying up mostly cars that aren't actually emitting much air pollution, and that means that our plan is not reducing air pollution much at all - this completely undermines our argument that this plan will be better than redesigning the plants.

It also sounds like you are frustrated that the correct answer brought up a new, seemingly-out-of-nowhere idea (paying only scrap metal prices). But this is often true in correct Strengthen and Weaken answers! It's extremely common for an answer to introduce a new, seemingly out of scope idea that actually has a significant impact on the likelihood of the conclusion.

Here, the scrap metal thing is mostly just a distractor - that's WHY we end up with only non-running cars being purchased, but the WHY doesn't really matter too much. The important part is just the idea that "most of the cars bought by the company weren't running anyway".

What do you think?

[lsatzen]

This question was incredibly frustrating during my PT. I made multiple mistakes when I was in the process of answering this question and I was hoping an MLSAT Geek could help me flesh out the details of my mistakes.

Q-Type: Weaken

Task: Pick the answer choice that exploits an assumption / reasoning error that occurs in the argument.

Conclusion: Buying old cares will reduce the air pollution more so than redesigning our plants.

Support: Plants account for 4% of local pollution, while cars that predate 1980 account for 30%.

Analysis: I incorrectly focused on the date "1980". I was under the impression that this would be the focal point of the argument's flaw. I was hunting for an answer that somehow made the automobiles that predated 1980 to make up a smaller portion of the overall pie of pollution contribution or enlarge the plants contribution to the pollution. This insistence made me think answer choice (A) was the correct answer.

However, (A) does not tell us anything about the how much pollution the cars that predate 1980 actually contribute. It merely tells us that, relative to all the other automobiles, they only make up 1% automobiles. Nothing about pollution. I imparted my own information into the answer choices because I too rigidly held onto my pre-phrase.

I wound up not choosing (C) because I thought that it contradicted information in the stimulus. In the stimulus, we were told that automobiles that predate 1980 accounts for 30% of the local air pollution. I figured it was common world knowledge to assume that if they are contributing such a large amount of pollution, then they must still be running. However, is this not actually contradictory because we are not told that the cars pre-dating 1980 would be the only cars sold? The answer choice just states that the cars that are sold do not run. So regardless of whether or not the cars they are referring to are the pre-dated 1980's cars, the cars that are sold, per the suggested plan, will be cars that are not contributing to the local air pollution. I just automatically assumed that the cars being discussed in the answer choice were the cars mentioned in the premise.

[KenM242]

What (C) is saying in simple terms is that, of all the crappy old cars, the ones that the company buys are ones that weren't even being used in the first place, and it's all because the company is cheap and pays so little(scrap metal prices) for these cars. Meanwhile, owners of cars who value their cars more than what the company is willing to pay for are keeping their cars to drive around polluting the city like their shooting mad max. So the company, with this policy, is not really reducing any pollution.

[mswang7]

Premises: Redesign plants (4% pollution)
Buy/ Dispose old cars
pre -1980 cars 30% of pollution
Concl: Air pollution will be reduced more if we choose the buy/ dispose old cars options
Gap: cars causing pollution is not the same as pollution that would be cause by disposing of those cars
A. Not really relevant. Tries to show it will be hard to find the cars needed
B. Saving money is not relevant - we are trying to prove which option will reduce pollution more
C. Cars would have to stop running, ie polluting, to be sold to the company which would thereby contribute to a larger reduction in pollution than the other option
D. out of scope
E. Would strengthen if anything

[JeremyK686]

Breakdown:
Old-Cars that are being driven are factors that contribute 30-percent of total pollution.
Old-Cars that are disposed of will reduce total pollution by at least 5

Analysis:
Cars that are being driven are the cars that will be disposed of

The old cars that the plant is buying and disposing of must be the same old cars that are being driven / contributing to the air pollution.

If the plant disposes of a bunch of old cars that aren’t ever driven, then there perhaps disposing of old cars won’t reduce more air pollution than redesigning the plants.

Qualification ‘X’ to Qualification ‘Y’:
To me, the fact that two things are being compared didn’t really matter to the fundamental core of the argument as much as the fact that the premise jumps from one categorical qualification of old-cars (those that are currently contributing to pollution) to a different categorical qualification of old-cars (those that are going to be disposed of).

The conclusion’s comparative-analysis that disposing of old-cars will reduce more pollution than the redesigning of its plants can also be shown, by way of implication, that old-cars to be rid of predicates that 30 percent of the total amount of pollution will be rid of as well. Basically: ridding of old-cars entails the ridding of a 30 percent pollution-contributor.

This is what led me to see that the premise’s subject category (old-cars that are currently driven) is distinct from the conclusion’s subject category (old-cars that are disposed of).

Analogous Situation:
One poster said ‘I just can't understand how the company paying only scrap metal prices (wherever that came from) for "used" cars weakens the argument’...

This analogy helped me in understanding this…

If I only pay nosebleed section prices from a person scalping their ticket to me, that doesn’t mean I’m buying decent seats. Common sense tells me that paying nosebleed section prices from a scalper will almost always mean the seats are going to be terrible, although there are some very rare occasions that a scalper would be so generous to provide me with awesome seats for nosebleed section prices. Likewise with answer (C) in that if the plant’s per-purchase budget is equivalent to the price of discarded metal (the price of the nosebleed section), then common sense would tell me the cars they are buying are likely discarded, i.e trash, i.e not used (the seats are likely fucking terrible).

Answer Choices:
(A) 1 percent of the cars driven can still contribute 30 percent to the total pollution. What if there are only 5 pre-1980 cars but one pre-1980 car is equal to ten-thousand post-1980 cars in how much pollution is produced.

(B) This is about the amount of money while the argument is about the amount of pollution.

(C) The idea that almost none of the cars sold (sold for whatever fucking reason) are not the cars running on the road. This idea weakens for the reasons I stated above.

(D) The argument is about pre-1980 cars and that they account for 30 percent of pollution. This answer is about newer cars (non-pre-1980 cars) that account for more than 30 percent (not-30 percent). The argument is about all O are T while this answer is about Some non-O are not T.

(E) This answer seems to be about whether the plants pollute or not in general, but the argument is an evaluation of which method saves more pollution.