Q22 - Columnist: There are certain pesticides

[aileenann]

This is a weaken question. On this kind of question, we do have to read all the answer choices to make sure we find the best one. It's possible that more than one answer choice will weaken the argument.

We'll want to particularly keep the conclusion in mind as we do this, so let's first identify that - in this case it's that "this practice (the US practice of banning but nonetheless manufacturing and importing banned materials) greatly increases the health risk to U.S. consumers."

Let's take a look at each answer choice and decide which one most weakens the conclusion and/or the reasoning that gets us there:

(A) is out of scope entirely.
(B) is also out of scope - we are only interested in the ones that are banned. This still doesn't address the availability and use of the banned ones.
(C) weakens the argument somewhat that there is an alternate supply of these hazardous materials. Therefore even if the US stopped making the banned substances, it could very well continue to import them.
(D) seems tempting, but it's really out of scope. We don't care about comparing the magnitude of risk in various countries. We only care about whether there is a risk to US consumers.
(E) is out of scope.

Our answer is (C).

Is everything clear here? If not, feel free to follow up

[joyce.hau]

I'd chosen B here because it seemed to attack one of the premises. If most of the pesticides that are shipped abroad are not banned, wouldn't those pesticides be relatively innocuous and therefore not pose a health risk to US consumers?

Could this answer be wrong precisely because it goes against a premise in the argument? (Is that a hallmark of weaken questions--that the right answer can't change a premise within the stem?)

[aileenann]

That's an interesting question, Joyce. I do think it attacks one of the premises to the extent that it lessens our concern that the US is manufacturing pesticides it bans by saying that these banned pesticides are not the most popular of the pesticides we make. The problem with this answer though is that it still does not address the concerns about the banned pesticides. So it's wrong because it's off topic, basically.

I think you get at a larger trend though in asking whether weaken answers don't go against a premise, and I have a two part response. To the extent that an answer choice attacks/"disproves" a premise, it can't be the answer. The LSAT doesn't lie, and picking a contradictory fact would essentially be trying to weaken the argument by saying "that columnist is a liar." That is a very silly and illogical way to make a point and certainly not behavior the LSAT wants to reward (we don't want lawyers like that!).

However, there are certainly times where a weakener doesn't go directly to a conclusion but in some way narrows the reach of a premise or puts it in a different perspective that makes it seem less relevant or less important than it initially seemed - and these can absolutely be the right answer in some cases.

You're doing a great job keeping your eyes open for these little details - that will help you a lot as your LSAT prep goes forward!

[linzru86]

But can't a certain practice "greatly increase the health risk to U.S." while still not being the only practice that does so? I just don't see how C weakens that conclusion. It seems out of scope to me.
The conclusion doesn't imply that the mentioned practice is the only practice that greatly increases the health risk to U.S. just that it does do so.
For example, the U.S. could be the country that exports the most banned pesticides of any nation and exports that pesticide to the U.S.'s biggest crop trade parter. So, if that country is receiving the majority of the banned pesticides and exporting the majority of the crops back to the U.S. that were all exposed to massive amounts of this pesticide then how would the US not being the only country that manufactures and exports the pesticides matter all that much? Also, say that C is true and some other small country does do the same thing but only about .01% of the pesticide crops are exported back to the US. The U.S.'s practice of banning yet still manufacturing and exporting the pesticide would STILL greatly increase the health risk to U.S. consumers, right?

[aileenann]

No worries. You were very clear, and I think you are absolutely right. If the US represents a very very large portion of the responsibility for these dangerous pesticides, then once they stopped there wouldn't be too many other sources. So if I had an answer choice saying the U.S. is the only or the biggest (or other choices that go along with the scenario you highlighted), then this would strengthen the argument.

By the same token, an answer choice that seems to suggest that all this is less likely seems to weaken the answer choice for the very same reason. Once we know that the US is not the only manufacturer/exporter of this product, we know that the above situation is at least a little less likely.

This question is a good example of why it's best to work by process of elimination. Then, even if you feel shaky, you can be more confident picking an answer even if you don't love it, or even like it. You just have to find it marginally better than irrelevant (assuming the other choices are irrelevant or the opposite of what you want).

The other issue the question raises that it's good to remember is that with S/W questions, we are only looking for the best answer. There is no guarantee that it will be a great answer or a good answer (hence, the process of elimination).

I hope this makes it all a bit clearer. If not, I'd like to hear more follow-up from you.

[ebrickm2]

U.S. manufacture/export pesticide

practice increases risk

b/c we manufacture and export, it assumes this is the source of the risk.

So is it saying that an alternate cause of the risk is from other countries who are engaging in similar practices? It seems like it.

So it is saying that the problem would likely persist in the absence of the cause. That we could still have the risk without the cause (U.S. manufact/export).

Suggestion of an alternate cause for an effect? What do you think?

[aileenann]

I think that is dead on. You can also do this with an argument that is suggesting that one cause is a main cause, or is just focusing on that cause as its sole concern. Pointing out other potential problems, even somewhat implicitly, does the job.

[ohsobecca]

I am getting really turned around on this question. I read the explinations already offered but I'm still confused. To me, the core of the argument is:

banned US pesticides come back to the US as imports --> big health risk to US consumers.

To me, C STRENGTHENS the conclusion by confirming that other countires are exporting to pesticides (i.e. then they can get imported to the US). Someone mentioned that C is like an alternate explination and while I know alt explinations are often the answer for weaken questions I am totally not seeing how the fact that other countries do what the US does lessens the risk to US consumers. Please help!

[aileenann]

So firstly (and this could matter sometimes), I'd say that your core is close but has an error. Specifically, you say this leads to a "big risk" but rather what you should say is that it leads to a "greatly increased risk." Do you see what the difference is? Pause and think about it before reading the next paragraph.

The difference is that a greatly increased risk need not be a big risk. For example, let's say it causes my risk to go up from 2% to 10%. That would be a 5 times increase, but to many people a 10% risk would still not be very high - so this would be an example of a greatly increased risk that is still not a big risk.

Now as far as strengthening or weakening the conclusion, think about what the conclusion is saying. It's saying that it is this practice in particular that is responsible for a greatly increased risk to people in the United States. (C) WEAKENS that conclusion by saying there are plenty of other countries that manufacture these harmful pesticides and that therefore it's likely that harmful pesticides from all sorts of other countries also come into the US and result in that increased health risk. So this answer choice weakens the argument by suggesting that the US is not the sole explanation or pointing out alternate sources of risk.

Now I realize this may not be entirely satisfying because it's not an airtight weakener. In particular, you could easily imagine that the US is still the biggest source of risk. It would be analogous to being in a room with a black widow and a boa constrictor at the same - just because there are two dangerous animals in the room doesn't mean that either of them is individually less dangerous than it would be by itself.

But (C) is the best option we have here. I'd recommend you go back over the other answer choices and think about why they do NOT weaken - you'll have (C) remaining by process of elimination.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to follow up on this.

[interestedintacos]

ohsobecca's mistake is in thinking that we are merely trying to strengthen the possibility of the conclusion being true (that there will be a higher health risk to US consumers). But we aren't. We are trying to strengthen the argument, which is that a particular thing will cause a big increase in health risk. Aileenann put this pretty well.

If we learn that the US isn't the only country that makes these particular pesticides, then the chance the particular thing we want to show would cause a big increase in health risk (US production of the pesticide) is lowered--after all, why would US production cause a big increase when we're already potentially importing agricultural products from the rest of the world treated with the very same pesticides? Now, as a previous poster pointed out, this by no means kills the argument. The argument could still survive. But that's the whole point of a "weaken" question as opposed to a necessary assumption question, for instance. We only need something that would, for instance, cause the arguer to respond--something that actually gets at the meat of the argument; we don't need an airtight argument destroyer, and often correct answer choices are far from total destroyers. The mistake of that poster was thinking that the correct answer choice would have to ruin the argument and be airtight to responses.

[shaun_79]

I understand all of your explanations, and I think they are valid, but I'm still struggling with C because of one thing. It seems like just because there are other countries manufacturing and exporting pesticides, does not take away from the fact that the US manufacturing these pesticides still increases the health risk to US consumers. Yes, I understand that people could still get it from other countries (say Brazil and China), but simply because that option is there does not negate the fact that the US's persistent manufacture is still harmful-- it just means there's other harmful sources that add to the level of harm.

When I first read this, I saw C as out of scope because of this.

How is my thinking wrong?

I agree with you to an extent. I thought this question/answer choice was poor, too. However, I do think it's the best answer.

At first thought, this is how I saw it. Let's use an analogy. Say, for example, a U.S. company manufactures guns, and Mexican drug cartels use these guns to commit crimes in Mexico. Someone argues that the U.S. company is significantly adding to the gun problem in Mexico because they manufacture guns that are being used to commit these crimes. The U.S. company responds: "we're not the only ones manufacturing these guns." That response sucks; it does not "seriously" weaken the argument that they are adding to the problem! In fact, the US company could still be the biggest part of that problem, even if they supply less than 50% of the guns.

After further review, I think the key is that the argument was saying that the U.S was "greatly" increasing the health risk... and answer choice C gave a reason to think that maybe the U.S. only contributes a tiny fraction to the overall problem. Therefore, the force of the argument that the U.S. "greatly" increases health risks... is somewhat weakened. I still hated that question. This was one the LSAC should have removed from scoring.

[ericha3535]

Guys, I just got this question now so here we go.
Here is the rough breakdown for the stimulus:

U.S is exporting some pesticides that is really bad some countries. Ironically, those countries use them and import like fruits and whatnot right back to us, a perfect example of a vicious cycle. Therefore, U.S people's health is greatly in danger.

Now, guys... here comes the most important word: GREATLY.
This argument seems to be airtight but this one word, GREATLY, is one that has made this argument significantly weak.

Think about it... to GREATLY increase the health risk to U.S consumers, wouldn't it be more logical if the U.S were to be the ONLY country that exports bad pesticide?

What if 100 other countries also export such pesticides, along with U.S? Then, even if U.S stops exporting them, their consumer's health risk would is still be high.

The tricky part about this question is that having U.S exporting pesticides still does increase consumers' health risk. But does it GREATLY increase their health risk given the assumption that other 100 countries also export the pesticides? Not quite right?

Let's talk about other answer choices:
A) who cares about soil... this even talks about only U.S soil not other countries.
B) This talks about most of pesticides that are being exported to other countries are not banned. probably one can infer that they are not that bad to consumers' health. But, who cares about most of them? We are only talking about a certain pesticides which could be 1 or 2. So even if most of them are good, the argument still holds.

D) This makes a relative term. This would be a trap answer if you thought that "in addition to.... other countries" was a part of conclusion. We are only concerned with U.S's health

E) Ok, so there are some pesticides that are not banned in U.S that are banned in other coutnries. This is irrelevant; because you might believe that ohhhhh so the pesticides that are banned are bad so if they are used in U.S, it could increase the health risk to consumers. But the problem is, the argument is talking about pesticides that are being exported not imported... so... iiiiiirelevent.

Note: seriously, I hate this question and the answer choice. The answer choice is sooooooo weak that I eliminated it on the first try. But... I guess we just have to be nit picky about every word that LSAC uses...

[Yanlinchen33]

Like ericha, I too focused on the word GREATLY, but I arrived on a different conclusion.

I chose B because if MOST of the pesticides the U.S. export are not banned, then the partice of exporting of banned pesticides cannot GREATLY INCREASE the risk, because there are only a small amount of them.
I know it takes a logic leap to assume that small PORTION = small AMOUNT but I think it's acceptable, comparing to the logic leap of C.
For C, I think just because other countries are also manufacturing those pesticides doesn't mean the U.S. is not increasing the risk. As long as the U.S. is still contributing to the total amount of banned pesticides, it still can GREATLY INCREASE the risk. If it increase like from 5% to 15%, instead of from 80% to 90%. It can still be a GREAT INCREASE.

[ohthatpatrick]

Full disclosure, this is probably my least favorite LSAT question ever, so defending (C) makes me sick to the stomach.

I think the quickest way to get to the difference between (B) and (C) is to focus on the Main Premise.

Because / Since / After all / For
are the four trigger words that really yell to our brain, "THIS is the premise half of the core".

"these nasty pesticides are often used on food coming into the US"

The author assumes that the nasty pesticides riding into the US on top of produce are nasty pesticides that were, ironically, MADE IN THE USA.

In order for the author's story to hold together he needs a few links:
We make banned P's -> We export banned P's -> THOSE banned P's come back to us on produce

(C) weakens that last part of the story. "Sure, some of the produce that comes into the USA has Deathrax on it. And sure, the US makes Deathrax and exports it onto the world market. But do you have any proof that the Deathrax on our incoming produce is actually AMERICAN Deathrax?"

Does (B) weaken any part of the story?

Let's say that Deathrax is only 3% of the pesticides we make here. It is still a fact, given the Main Premise, that produce covered in Deathrax is coming into the US. Is the produce covered in AMERICAN Deathrax or foreign-made Deathrax?

We still don't know. But the piece of info in (B) does nothing to inform our opinion, whereas (C) slightly affects it.

If (B) said "Most of the deathrax manufactured in the world is NOT manufactured in the United States", then we'd have ourselves a good answer.

Hope this helps.

[keonheecho]

Would it be valid to say that (C) also correct because of the first part of the conclusion "in addition to jeopardizing the health of people in these other countries"?

If they are already producing these pesticides, they are already in jeopardy, right?

Thank you in advance

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I think that's fair. Nice addition!

[lily_villegas]

I chose (E) because I reasoned that the United States does not ban pesticides that other countries do ban because maybe the soil in the United States is different and the pesticides are not as harmful to our produce when that produce is grown in the United States. So I though maybe the pesticides that are harmful in the United States are not as harmful to the produce when it is grown in other countries. Maybe the soil in China is somehow immune to the harmful effects of pesticides banned in the United States. It could then be that apples grown in China using the pesticides the United States exports do not pose a health risk because they were grown in China soil.

Definitely a leap, but I only arrived at this reasoning after realizing how weak all the other answers were.

I don't agree with the correct answer (C) at all. Who's to say the United States isn't the biggest exporter of the banned pesticides?

[haeeunjee]

Hello, here are my thoughts and questions on B and D. I also focused on the key terms "greatly" and "often."

For B: I understand why B would be wrong when looking at ohthatpatrick's post because B would seem irrelevant to whether or not the banned pesticides are actually American-manufactured or foreign-manufactured.

However, like a previous poster, I thought since B says "MOST of the pesticides" are not among those banned in the U.S., it figures that definitely, the pesticides that are banned compose only a minority. And if they compose only a minority, would the practice GREATLY increase the risk? I understood greatly with a stronger logical force than minority.. Hmm, I realize as I am typing this that even if only a minority of pesticides are the bad, banned ones, there is still the possibility that MOST agricultural products imported into the US are tainted with bad pesticides. Besides, the stim says these pesticides are "often used" on imported ag. products. "Often" doesn't exclude the possibility that these pesticides are used on most imported ag. products, right? If my reasoning is now correct, I think I previously equivocated between the pie share that banned pesticides hold vs. the pie share that agricultural products affected by bad pesticides hold. (Ex: Anthrax, a bad pesticide, accounts for only 15% of all pesticides manufactured in the US. Yet, when looking at a different pie [the total of imported agricultural products], maybe 80% of these products are tainted with Anthrax). Is my somewhat fumbling reasoning of why B is *now* wrong, correct?

For D: I think the root of my problem was that I thought "this practice [of manufacturing banned pesticides in the US and exporting them]" in the stimulus referred more BROADLY to the practice of manufacturing and exporting these bad pesticides. Since I read it like that, I thought D actually strengthened the argument and got rid of it pretty quickly from the get-go. I mean, if other countries are also manufacturing and exporting these bad pesticides, thus increasing / popularizing this practice, then this feeds straight into the columnist's argument that "this practice greatly increases the health risk to U.S. consumers" because duh! - there are more agents doing the same practice and maybe some of those products that get infected with foreign bad pesticides also end up on imported ag. products to U.S. consumers and are bad for their health! I realize that "this practice" should only be thought as referring to a narrower definition: a phenomenon in which the U.S. bans pesticides, and yet manufactures and exports them.

Furthermore, I now realize re-reading D that it only says that the pesticides that are banned in the U.S. are also manufactured and exported in other countries. It never mentions that these pesticides are also banned in foreign countries. They may just be manufactured and exported, and thus the foreign countries' practice is not necessarily the same as the U.S. practice. In conclusion: I see that I equivocated "the practice" that the U.S. does with the practice that other countries do. And not only that, the argument in the stim. specifically refers to the "practice" of the U.S.

Is my reasoning for both these answers somewhat logical?

(Lesson to self: Don't equivocate/assign different meanings of words. Read carefully.)

[PhoebeL747]

I chose (E) because I reasoned that the United States does not ban pesticides that other countries do ban because maybe the soil in the United States is different and the pesticides are not as harmful to our produce when that produce is grown in the United States. So I though maybe the pesticides that are harmful in the United States are not as harmful to the produce when it is grown in other countries. Maybe the soil in China is somehow immune to the harmful effects of pesticides banned in the United States. It could then be that apples grown in China using the pesticides the United States exports do not pose a health risk because they were grown in China soil.

I had the same thought as lily_villegas. Also, from another perspective, could it be possible that the columnist is making an assumption that the US banned these pesticides because of the health risk they present? Couldn't it be possible that they were banned because of some other reason, let's say cultural or maybe involving patent/ownership issue? and maybe that's why in (E), it indicates that banning certain pesticides is completely subjective according to different countries' standards (not necessarily health-related since if that's the only concern, those pesticides banned in other countries should also be banned in the US, and vice versa, isn't it? ), and therefore weakens. Can someone correct me if my reasoning is erroneous?

[JeremyK460]

premises
harmful pesticides that can't be used on food in the US are made & exported out from the US to other countries
these other countries use those harmful pesticides on food that's then imported back to the US

conclusion
this practice is harmful to the health of people from those other countries and also from the US.

thoughts
the argument is assuming that the source of this outcome (increasing the health risk of people from other countries) is derived only from the US

because if the outcome can result from similar practices of countries other than those of the US, then how can the outcome be resultant only from the practices of the US?
and why should the argument conclude that the US be solely responsible for this?

this was difficult to parse through
once i noticed that the argument uses a practice executed by one (the US) to infer that this practice had an impact on all (other countries effected by it) i realized that the argument was assuming that the US is the only one executing this 'practice'