Q2 - Kris: Years ago, the chemical

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Kris says that we should regulate the cellular industry, just like we regulated the chemical industry. Why? Because they're similar. They both produce pollution. There's the analogy; noise pollution is analogous to chemical pollution.

Terry says, "that doesn't make any sense!" And then he points out why they're not analogous - one can cause physical harm and the other cannot. So, answer choice (D) describes how Terry responds to Kris.

Incorrect Answers

(A) is unsupported. Neither brings up a source issue.
(B) would be a logical way of attacking an argument and so could be tempting. But the issue Terry brings up is the comparability of the two forms of pollution.
(C) is a valid way of challenging an argument that posits a causal relationship. But causation is not the issue, using an incomparable analogy is.
(E) is unsupported. Terry never discusses the term technological progress, nor does Kris's argument depend on one.


#officialexplanation

[jamiejames]

Wheres the analogy in this stim aka why is D correct and B incorrect?

[Mab6q]

Is the problem with B the fact that it says chemical industry when instead it should have said cellular. I believe Terry is implying that Kris is wrong to suggest that the cellular phone industry causes environmental damage.

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your post, Mab6q. I don’t think (B) would be correct even if it said “cellular” instead of “chemical.” Terry doesn’t question the accuracy of the evidence – he doesn’t argue that cell phones don’t ring or don't facilitate loud conversations in public. I see what you’re saying about environmental damage, but I think Terry would argue that cell phones and chemicals cause different kinds of environmental pollution.

Ultimately, Terry questions whether the comparison to chemical pollution is a fair one, not whether cell phones cause some kind of harm.