Q19 - Henry: Engines powered by electricity from batteries

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken (Umit) or Strengthen (Henry), whichever you prefer

Stimulus Breakdown:
Umit's conclusion: Replacing standard cars with battery-powered cars is not what we should do to reduce urban pollution. Evidence: Battery-powered cars have to be recharged a lot and create a greater demand for power plant electricity, which is a major source of pollution.

Answer Anticipation:
If Henry wants to stick up for the idea that switching to battery powered vehicles would reduce pollution, what can he say? At this point in the conversation, battery powered cars have a GOOD THING relating to pollution (their engines cause less pollution than those of standard cars) and a BAD THING relating to pollution (they increase demand for power plants, which are a source of pollution). If Henry wants to argue that battery-powered cars are, on balance, a GOOD THING relating to pollution, then he either needs to add another good thing or make it clear that the good thing we've heard about outweighs the bad thing we've heard about (the extra pollution that battery cars would demand from power plants is less pollution than what we save by having an engine powered by electricity vs. powered by internal combustion)

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) YES, this works. Since Henry is only talking about "urban pollution", if it turns out that power plant pollution is confined to non-urban areas, then Umit's objection becomes irrelevant.

(B) This also seems to work. Honestly, I distrust an answer this common sensical at Q19, but I would keep it on a first pass. The problem is term "offset", which implies "they cancel out". Henry loses the conversation if battery-powered cars aren't REDUCING urban pollution. If this answer had said "would be MORE THAN offset", then we'd be into reducing pollution territory. Another curious aspect is that it specifies air pollution, even though neither H nor U specifically said we were talking abou air pollution.

(C) The small vs. large distinction doesn't matter, because Umit's point still holds ... A small battery powered car has a shorter range than a small standard car, so a small batter-powered car creates a greater demand for polluting power plant energy.

(D) Out of scope. We're comparing battery-powered vs. standard, and analyzing them only in terms of urban pollution.

(E) Irrelevant. Umit wasn't saying we would need to build new plants or that plants couldn't supply this extra energy. He was just saying this energy also comes with a pollution cost.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is a pretty mean question. We have a VERY familiar real world debate (are electric cars REALLY better for pollution? I mean, where does the electricity come from?) and trap answer (B) teases the obvious rejoinder (yes, electric cars mean we need more electricity, but there is still a net savings in energy / pollution), but the problem with (B) is that it DOESN'T actually tip the scales, it just balances them. Meanwhile, the correct answer is going for a subtle scope issue -- Henry was only talking about reducing URBAN pollution, so we're only logically countering his argument if we're talking about something that affects urban pollution. (A) makes it clear that Umit's objection was not something that would affect urban pollution. The word 'urban' was so easy to miss, that when I initially typed up Umit's Conclusion in the beginning of this explanation, I didn't even notice it and simply wrote "to reduce pollution". What saves me on a question like this is that when I see (A) is bringing up an issue of WHERE the pollution is confined to, I don't assume I know whether or not this matters. I check the statements again to see if it's a meaningful distinction.

#officialexplanation

[XiaoranZ794]

hi, I think that "major cities" refer to important or large cities, but "urban pollution" is a problem of all cities. Reduction of the pollution in major cities does not necessarily lead to a reduction of the urban pollution as a whole, for all these locations may be all set in small cities and the pollution that comes from the electricity plants may significantly excceed the pollution caused by ordinary cars. Would you please be so kind to clarify this? I'm not a native speaker, so I guess my misunderstanding due at least in part to language?

[Laura Damone]

Hi! I actually don't think this is a language issue. Your post conveys a sophisticated understanding of what is and is not implied by these terms. I think the issue is in your expectation of the correct answer choice. But more on that in a minute.

First, I agree that there is a shift from "urban" to "major cities" because it's possible that there are "urban" areas in smaller cities. All "major cities" however, are "urban." So, if we could reduce pollution in "major cities" without replacing it with pollution in other urban areas, we would be effectively reducing urban pollution generally.

Now, as you mentioned, it is technically possible that all those plants are within other "urban" areas that don't qualify as "major cities." And it's also possible that the power plant pollution might exceed the levels of the car pollution. For these reasons, (A) is not a perfect counter to Umit's objection. It doesn't prove conclusively that the switch to battery vehicles would reduce urban pollution. But (A) is still the strongest counter. The other answers all have fatal flaws that Patrick outlined nicely in his post.

The big takeaway is that whenever the question stem effectively asks you for the "best" answer, don't eliminate strong answers just because they aren't perfect. Eliminate the ones that are way way off, then treat the remaining answers as contenders. Sometimes, the LSAT is testing whether you can pick the best among a group of pretty bad answers.

Hope this helps!

[BarbC178]

General question about these Q types:

I've seen "strongest counter" questions before and have been a bit confused how to approach.

For this one the ACs make it look like a weaken Q.

I have also seen one before where the ACs all looked like answers to flaw Qs and included some famous flaws.

Should I generally be treating these "strongest counter" questions like a Weaken Q? Or is it more nuanced?

Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

General question about these Q types:

I've seen "strongest counter" questions before and have been a bit confused how to approach.

For this one the ACs make it look like a weaken Q.

I have also seen one before where the ACs all looked like answers to flaw Qs and included some famous flaws.

Should I generally be treating these "strongest counter" questions like a Weaken Q? Or is it more nuanced?

Thanks!

I would probably approach these question as "strongest response." Imagine you're arguing with someone and they point out a problem with your argument. What's your best response to their objection?

Hope this helps.

[BarbC178]

Ok. So more like weaken than flaw?

[Laura Damone]

I think Misti's idea, to go with the strongest response, is intentionally flexible enough to include both. If speaker 2 exhibited a famous flaw in their logic, calling it out is likely the strongest response. But if they didn't exhibit a famous flaw, perhaps just weakening their claim, or clarifying/shoring up speaker 1's original claim as it relates to speaker 2's accusation, is the way to go. This is a question type that rewards flexibility!

[GolddiggerF208]

The real world teaches me a lot about pollutions so that I know a significant distance cannot cut off the pollutants. Just think about the smog drifting across the continent. To me, (A) means less frequent but still positive urban pollution (if the wind blows the pollutants into cities) while (B) means no urban pollution. That's why I believe (B) is better. I know it's superfluous but I can't help thinking in this way...

[yingz53]

I think another important problem with answer (B) is it just talks about 'air pollution' while the stimulus talks about general 'pollution'
Even if air pollution reduces, it can also have other kinds of pollution like soil pollution caused by nuclear waste