Q8 - Opponent of off-shore drilling

[nmop_apisdn2]

This is the second part to question 7; it asks: which one of the following, if true, most weakens the drilling proponent's reply?

Lets briefly run through the answer choices.

(B) is incorrect because it is giving us information that does not attack the drilling proponents argument/analogy in which he argues that it would be ridiculous to argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for much more than a few minutes (which is a rebuttal to the argument that we shouldn't drill for more oil since it would provide us with only a little bit more.
(C) is incorrect because this is talking about nutritional requirements and it's just way too out of scope to be core-relevant.
(D) is incorrect because it is talking about legislation and the way it has been articulated.
(E) is incorrect because it begins talking about the country's imports, which is clearly out of scope.

Finally, our correct answer (A) is correct because this weakens the proponent's argument by showing that it is a faulty analogy. It is a faulty analogy because the creation of new farms doesn't run a high risk like creating new oil wells would. In short, it points out the flaw in the analogy given.

[tommywallach]

Hey Nmop,

Great look at this already here, but I thought I'd weigh in a bit on this weaken question (and it's a new question, not just Part 2 of #7!):

Conclusion: Drill new oil wells. (Opponent's argument sucks.)
Premise: A single new farm doesn't provide much food, but you should still do it.

Obviously the glaring flaw here is that it totally ignores the fact that there's a downside to drilling oil and no downside to making a farm (at least, not one that's discussed).

(A) Voila!

(B) This seems to be drawing some line between oil under the ground and soil under the ground. But a random fact about where soil is doesn't affect the argument.

(C) If we also had proof that nutritional needs were more important that fuel requirements, this would be a good answer. It's actually fairly tempting (because it seems logical that food is more important than oil), but we can't jump there.

(D) This would strengthen the proponent's argument, because it implies that it's safer to allow more drilling than to allow new farms.

(E) If we knew that importing was inherently bad, this might be tempting. But there's nothing wrong with importing, as long as you have the money to do it.

Hope that helps!

-t

[WaltGrace1983]

Hey Nmop,

Great look at this already here, but I thought I'd weigh in a bit on this weaken question (and it's a new question, not just Part 2 of #7!):

Conclusion: Drill new oil wells. (Opponent's argument sucks.)
Premise: A single new farm doesn't provide much food, but you should still do it.

Obviously the glaring flaw here is that it totally ignores the fact that there's a downside to drilling oil and no downside to making a farm (at least, not one that's discussed).

(A) Voila!

(B) This seems to be drawing some line between oil under the ground and soil under the ground. But a random fact about where soil is doesn't affect the argument.

(C) If we also had proof that nutritional needs were more important that fuel requirements, this would be a good answer. It's actually fairly tempting (because it seems logical that food is more important than oil), but we can't jump there.

(D) This would strengthen the proponent's argument, because it implies that it's safer to allow more drilling than to allow new farms.

(E) If we knew that importing was inherently bad, this might be tempting. But there's nothing wrong with importing, as long as you have the money to do it.

Hope that helps!

-t

I'm a little confused with the bolded. Why would that make it a better/good answer? Whenever there is an argument by analogy, don't we just show why the analogy is irrelevant/terrible?

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

I definitely agree that arguing by analogy is a big no-no on the LSAT. However, IF the answer had somehow been able to differentiate between farms and oil wells in such a way as to create a reason why it might be worth getting even a small amount more food when it wouldn't be worth getting a small amount more oil, that could conceivably have weakened the proponents argument. That said, you're totally right that (C) doesn't come even close to doing such a thing.

-t

[WaltGrace1983]

Ah I think I see what your saying. So the proponent is basically saying this...

No new farm could supply the food needs for our country for more than just a few minutes
+
(It would be ridiculous to say no new farms should be allowed)
→
We should drill!

The assumption is that farming and oil drilling are roughly analogous in nature.

What you are saying is that we could also weaken the argument by doing just about the same thing - showing that the analogy doesn't work - but doing it in such a way that is a bit different from (A). You're saying that we could also weaken the argument by showing that farming, even to get food to feed the country for a few minutes, would be worth it whereas drilling just to get 0.5% more oil is not as beneficial. In other words, (A) talks about risk and how the risk of oil outweighs the risk of farming whereas the potential other weakener talks about benefit and how the benefit of farming far outweighs the benefit of oil.

In other words, both (A) and this potential just show why the analogy isn't very good.

[tommywallach]

Exactly my thinking!