Q5

 
mrudula_2005
Thanks Received: 21
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 136
Joined: July 29th, 2010
 
 
trophy
First Responder
 

PT43, S1, Q5, P1

by mrudula_2005 Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:59 pm

Hi,

For this question, one would refer to lines 30-33, right? This section states that it would be not just likely but inevitable that (without appropriate safeguards), wells that penetrate both groundwater and oil or saline water formations DO contaminate the groundwater.

While Question 5's stem states explicitly that the propsective oil being drilled does not encounter oil, it DOES encounter a small saline water formation according to the stem, and thus that section of the passage applies, right?

That being said, automatically all of the answer choices stating the groundwater contamination is unlikely need to be eliminated, right? That eliminates A and D and B is just way out of scope.

So far has my reasoning been correct? Am I relying on the proper section of the passage in attacking this question?

So out of C and E, what makes E the correct answer over C? Is it because E constitutes an "appropriate safeguard" maybe?

Many thanks in advance!
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT2
Thanks Received: 311
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 303
Joined: July 14th, 2009
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: PT43, S1, Q5

by ManhattanPrepLSAT2 Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:08 pm

I think most of your reasoning is right on --

I think you focused on the relevant part of the text, and you did a nice job of understanding it's significance.

I also think it's clever to get rid of answer choices involving "unlikely," but I wouldn't necessarily call the eliminations "automatic" because of that one word (though you were certainly right to eliminate A B and D first!).

With (C), we can't say the contamination is likely, because we have no idea if the correct safeguards have been put into place. Furthermore, plug and abandon is very different from a safeguard, and it's too extreme to say that the well will likely be contamination unless this very specific action is taken.

(E) is correct -- properly set down and monitored casing is representative of safeguards, and we've been told that contamination is more likely without safeguards.
User avatar
 
geverett
Thanks Received: 79
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 207
Joined: January 29th, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q5

by geverett Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:26 pm

I eliminated answer choice C, because even if the well is plugged and abandoned that doesn't necessarily preclude the salt water from contaminating the drinking water which could still be pumped at a later time and cause a health risk.

thoughts?
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT2
Thanks Received: 311
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 303
Joined: July 14th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q5

by ManhattanPrepLSAT2 Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:56 pm

I can see your reasoning geverett -- since plugging and abandoning has no guarantee of a consequence, (C) can't be correct. I agree with that.

I do think the big red flag should be this idea that contamination would be likely, in any consequence.

I think the author's attitude is that contamination can happen, and that the danger is that we don't know enough to completely control the situation. This is subtly, but significantly, different in meaning from "likely."
User avatar
 
geverett
Thanks Received: 79
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 207
Joined: January 29th, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q5

by geverett Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:36 am

Mike,
Check out lines 28 - 33. Maybe it's too late and I'm missing something, but the use of or seems to denote that contamination will be inevitable if it hits groundwater and either one of those things. thoughts?
 
jewels0602
Thanks Received: 3
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 54
Joined: September 20th, 2014
 
 
 

Re: Q5

by jewels0602 Tue May 26, 2015 3:48 am

I incorrectly chose C... but to elaborate further on what Mike.Kim said... is it also wrong because according to the author, we don't know enough about effects of geological factors on these casings so even if its plugged up, abandoning them could cause problems due to potential breakdowns in the future-- E addresses this problem with the routine checkup part...

I agree with Geverett with lines 28-33, and from that I got the idea of inevitable contamination too...
 
HeatherF897
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 7
Joined: April 25th, 2019
 
 
 

Re: Q5

by HeatherF897 Mon Aug 10, 2020 3:04 am

Hello! What is the significance of the part of the question that says "but no oil"? I initially took it to mean that they did not drill deep enough, and therefore they did not encounter oil and so the water wouldn't be contaminated. Luckily for me, none of the answers even got at that - so I arrived at E (yay?) - but I'm just not sure how I should have used the distinction that the prospective oil well did not encounter oil.
 
Laura Damone
Thanks Received: 94
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 468
Joined: February 17th, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q5

by Laura Damone Mon Aug 17, 2020 8:53 pm

I think this question is designed to test whether you understood the implications of the second and third sentences of paragraph three. Whenever you drill, you create a conduit connecting all the formations your drilling goes through, regardless of whether you strike oil. If you create a conduit between salt water and groundwater, the salt water can pollute the groundwater.

Hope this helps!
Laura Damone
LSAT Content & Curriculum Lead | Manhattan Prep