Q7 - Studies indicate that the rate

[timmydoeslsat]

I was curious if a reworded (B) would be a correct answer.

Stimulus:

Studies show the rate of increased water pollution is leveling off.

The amt. of water pollution caused this year is almost identical to the amt. of water pollution last year.

Therefore, if the trend continues, the water pollution problem will no longer be getting more serious.


Would this reworded version of (B) be a correct answer?

(B) The types of water pollution caused this year are more dangerous than those caused last year?

I think that this would have been a correct answer if (B) was worded in this way.

Am I right in this assessment?

[gilad.bendheim]

I'm not positive, but I think it is irrelevant regardless of whether it says less or more dangerous. Here's my thinking:

Your interpretation of the stimulus (I think - and mine, until you posed this question) was that when it says 'amount of water pollution' it means the volume. That is, that they are saying that whereas last year there were 100 gallons of pollution, this year there are only 103 gallons, and we can expect that next year there will be 103 or so again. If this were what the stimulus was saying, then your point would probably be correct, because perhaps 103 gallons of super contaminated water is more damaging than 100 gallons of so-so contaminated water.

But I think a closer reading of the stimulus says something else. It doesn't say the amount of polluted water, but rather the amount of water pollution. It doesn't seem to be making any claim about the volume of water, as much as a percentage of the water that is contaminated - parts per million (PPM), lets say. In this reading, last year there were 100 PPM contaminated and this year there is 103 PPM contaminated, and we hope that the following year will be 103 PPM as well. But the difference is that it doesn't matter how potent the pollution is in this case. to get 103 PPM contamination, we can have a lot of moderately contaminated water or a very small amount of highly contaminated water. If I'm correct (and I might not be), the type of pollution is irrelevant to the amount of pollution. Here's an analogy which might clear it up. I can release a kiloton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by leaving the lights on in my house for 365 days straight, or I can add the same amount by burning down every house on my block in 45 minutes. Both have the same effect in terms of AMOUNT, but are of a different potency, or TYPE. There is a subtle shift in the language from amount (stimulus) to type (choice B), and I don't think that a change in type (either more or less dangerous) necessarily matters, unless we know the concentration of that type - which we don't in this case.

Hope this makes sense (though I fear it doesn't)!

[ohthatpatrick]

Wow! What a fascinating, if pointless, dissection of this problem.

You guys are both on your way to being great lawyers.

I was definitely sympathetic initially to the rephrase of (B) being something that would weaken the argument. It would seem to show something importantly different about this year's pollution, which would jar this author out of his state of celebratory complacency.

But I must admit, I was persuaded by Gilad's reasoning. Even though the LSAT would never ask us to think this deeply about the issue, I appreciated the nuance you were distinguishing between the quantity of water polluted and quantity of pollution.

One thing seems for sure: if the stimulus said "the amount of water polluted this year is almost identical to the amount of water polluted last year", then our rephrase of (B) would definitely weaken the argument.

The only skepticism I have to Gilad's line of thought is that choice (B) is breaking up the concept of "water pollution" into different types, which does open the door for thinking that the same amount of overall pollution could still have varying degrees of danger.

If I told you that Glass X had the same amount of toxins as Glass Y, would that prove to you that the two beverages were equally dangerous?

Say there are different types of toxins, for instance, arsenic and plutonium.

Maybe 2g of arsenic is better/worse than 2g of plutonium.

That would end up being the same PPM figure, but one would be more dangerous than the other.

To use Gilad's example, both the 365 day lightbulb and the neighborhood arson result in the same amount of pollution. Isn't it possible that the neighborhood arson is more dangerous for the environment? Maybe the environment has a better ability to absorb a slow stream of carbon dioxide than it does to withstand a sudden concentrated burst. So these two different TYPES, that ultimately lead to the same AMOUNT, could still potentially differ on the grounds of DANGER.

So, ultimately, in this highly intelligent but pointless debate, I think I'd say that (B)-rephrased WOULD weaken the argument as written.

[syed_s_hus]

Isn't E the answer!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, (E) is the answer. We were discussing a hypothetical, re-worded version of (B), not the actual (B) in Q7. I'm not surprised if you were too bored or disinterested to read through that whole discussion, though.

[marokh9]

Hello,

I was stuck between (A) and (E). I ended up choosing the correct answer, (E). I was tempted with choosing (A) because of the effect it has on organisms (not noticeable) and I thought this might be what the argument had missed. I didn't choose (A) because the stem does not talk about the "type" of water, and chose (E) instead because of the "amount" of water.

Is my reasoning correct?

Thanks in advance!

[jwms]

Yes, nothing in the stimulus addresses organisms, so it can be dismissed on that basis.

And the stimulus' reasoning surrounds the amount, and so that should be the focus of where the gap may lay, making (E) the optimal choice.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

why is C incorrect exactly?

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's put up a complete explanation, since we don't have one here yet.

Question Type: Weaken
(It looks like Flaw, but the prefix "ignores the possibility" is essentially the same as, "if true, would it weaken?")

Argument Core:

Conc - If current trends continue water pollution will no longer be getting more serious!

why?

Prem - Current trend is that the amount of water pollution caused this year is basically the same as that caused last year.

Our thinking job:
"How can I accept the PREM but argue for the opposite of the CONC"

Given that this year's amount of pollution is the same as last year's, how can I argue that if we continue to have this steady rate of pollution, our water pollution problem WILL still be getting more serious?

(A) This sounds like pollution is mild. We want an answer that let's us explain how the pollution problem is getting more serious. Eliminate.

(B) This makes the present/future sound milder than before. We need it to sound like things are getting worse.

(C) You can't argue with the IF-half of an IF-THEN statement. If someone says "If Hillary Clinton becomes President, she will push universal health care", I am not contradicting them by saying "She will NOT become President". I'm only contradicting them by saying "She DOES become President but does NOT push universal health care."

The author never promised that the trend would continue. He promised that IF the trend continues, such-and-such would happen.

(D) Sorry, we're trying to say WATER pollution gets worse.

(E) Bingo! If water pollution gets worse with every new bit of water pollution, then our steady rate of pollution will continue to make the problem more serious in a steady way.

This is essentially like taking the US national debt and thinking, "At this point, we've slowed down our borrowing ... this year we borrowed only 500 billion dollars, just like last year ... so if we keep borrowing only 500 billion dollars a year, our national debt problem will no longer be getting more serious."

[roflcoptersoisoi]

It's been almost a year since I've attempted to do this question, I had actually completely forgotten that I did.

Premise: The rate at which water pollution is increasing is levelling as demonstrated by the fact that the amount of water pollution caused this year is almost identical to the amount caused last year.

Conclusion: If the amount of water pollution is consistently similar to the amount in the preceding year, then water pollution will no longer be getting more serious.


Flaw: Presumes that the potency of the pollution will not augment from year to year. Even if the amount of water pollution no longer greatly varies from year to year, if the potency increases, the problem of pollution could still be exacerbated.


(A) The author does indeed look fail to consider this, but this is attributable to the limited scope of the stimulus. However this does not describe the defect in the logic/reasoning of the argument.
(B) She does indeed fail to consider this, but this is not a flaw in the argument. If this were the case then it would seem to support the author's argument.
(C) This isn't ignored, in fact it's taken in consideration. The conclusion states that "IF THE TREND CONTINUES" so the author is fully aware that this trend will not necessarily continue.
(D) Air and soil pollution are irrelevant to water pollution.
(E) Bingo. If the effects of water pollution are cumulative then the reasoning falls apart.