This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question.
The stimulus says that if the proposed air pollution measures were to be implemented, ozone levels in the city's air would be one fifth lower, i.e., 20% lower, than current levels. Since the ozone in our air is currently responsible for $5 billion in health costs (premise), we would spend about a billion dollars less on these ozone-related health costs should the proposal be adopted (conclusion).
We always have two options when approaching Flaw questions. Either we identify the flaw in advance and go hunting for it in the answer choices, or use process of elimination. If you think this argument makes sense, keep an open mind as you go through the answer choices because the correct answer will point out something that you had not considered.
Answer Choice (A) says the argument fails to consider the possibility that other types of pollution not involving ozone might rise, perhaps even producing an overall increase in health costs. Sure, maybe particulate matter pollution or carbon dioxide pollution will rise. But the argument is completely contained to ozone and does not contemplate non-ozone-related health costs. So to criticize it for failure to do that is not a criticism of the logic of the argument.
(A) might be a fair criticism if we were having a discussion about health costs in general. But when we evaluate arguments in Weakening or Flaw/Descriptive Weakening, we have to limit that evaluation to the actual premise and conclusion presented, all of which are limited to ozone here. If (A) flies, then I can also say that the biggest contributor to health costs is heart diseases, not ozone, so we should talk about heart diseases if we really want to reduce health costs.
Correct Answer Choice (B) says the argument presumes, without providing evidence, that ozone-related health costs in the city vary roughly in proportion to ozone levels. This means if you reduce ozone levels by 20%, health costs would also go down by 20%. At a minimum, you should recognize that that is an accurate description of the assumption made. The argument is in fact presuming this, so (B) passes step one of the two-step test.
Now ask yourself if it is in fact reasonable to assume this. It turns out it is not. Ozone levels could generate health costs once the level of ozone passes a certain threshold. So it could be that ozone pollution is negligible until after a critical mass of the pollution has been accumulated, after which it becomes very damaging. If that were the case, then the 20% reduction might bring ozone levels under the threshold, which would result in health benefits of $5 billion. The opposite could also be true. Ozone levels could still be above the threshold even after the reduction, in which case we might not reduce health costs at all.
I am not saying this is how ozone levels actually work, but the point is that because we do not know how they work, we cannot make the naive assumption that the relationship between ozone levels and health care costs is proportional. There are so many other non-proportional relationships. And finally, in reality, the economic concept of diminishing marginal returns cuts against the assumption of proportionality.
Answer Choice (C) says the argument provides no explicit reason for believing that the proposed air pollution measures will in fact be adopted. Like (B), (C) is descriptively accurate. We do not know if the measures will be adopted or not. However, this is not the flaw. The premise says, “if the proposed air pollution measures were to be implemented,” so it is contemplating a hypothetical world. If we adopt it, what would happen?
Answer Choice (D) says the argument attempts to support the conclusion by making an appeal to emotions. The conclusion is supported by an appeal to math, not emotions. We think we would reduce health costs by 20% because the ozone levels will go down by 20%. An argument that did appeal to emotions would say something like “we should adopt the new ozone control measures because Timmy lost his mother to ozone pollution.”
Answer Choice (E) says the argument discusses air pollution to draw attention away from more significant sources of health-related costs. An argument actually guilty of this vulnerability would establish that a more significant source of health cost was, for example, heart disease. And the author would say, have you guys considered air pollution? There is ozone, nitrogen, volatile organic compounds, etc. That is trying to draw attention away from heart disease, which does not happen here.
This is a Parallel Method of Reasoning question.
The stimulus says the railway authority inspector who recently thoroughly checked the tracks testified that they were in good condition. The next claim says, “Thus, since” which means we’re about to get a premise followed by a conclusion. Since the inspector has no bias in the matter (premise), we should thus be suspicious of the newspaper reporter's claims that the tracks are in poor condition (conclusion).
Two people disagree about the condition of the railroad tracks. The argument is that we should believe the inspector, not the reporter. Why? Because the inspector has no bias and said the tracks were in good condition after having thoroughly checked them. The reasoning here is an appeal to authority. Let's now look at the answers and try to match the reasoning above.
Answer Choice (A) says my pottery instructor says that making pottery will not cause repetitive-motion injuries if it is done properly. So far, there seems to be a parallel between the pottery instructor and the inspector. Now we have to find somebody who disagrees and then conclude that we should believe the pottery instructor. But then (A) instead says, “I will probably not get such injuries, for whenever I do pottery, I use the proper techniques that my instructor taught me.” While this argument is fine, it is not analogous to the argument in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (B) says Gardner, a noted paleontologist who has no vested interest in the case, assures us that the alleged dinosaur bones are not old enough to be dinosaurs. Gardner, a relevant expert, is analogous to the inspector. Gardner also has no vested interest in the case, so he has no bias.
(B) goes on to say that we should be skeptical of Penwick's claims to have found dinosaur bones, for Gardner inspected the bones carefully. Gardner’s careful inspection is analogous to the inspector’s thorough check, and Penwick is analogous to the newspaper reporter. And the conclusion is that we should be skeptical of Penwick, which is similar to how we should be suspicious of the reporter. (B) matches the stimulus extremely well. The reasoning here is also one of an appeal to authority.
Answer Choice (C) says the engineer hired by the company that maintains the bridge has examined the bridge and declared it safe. The engineer is a relevant expert who has examined the bridge and declared it safe. While we should be wary of subject matter similarity since LSAT writers like to use that as a trap, so far, (C) is analogous to the stimulus.
But (C) then says that the engineer is the only one to have checked the bridge. This idea is not present in the stimulus. In addition, the disagreement component is missing in (C) too. There is no analogue to the newspaper reporter.
Answer Choice (D) says the reporter who recently interviewed the prime minister said that the prime minister appeared to be in poor health. The paper has opposition leanings, so that is a bias. (D) is already diverging from the stimulus.
If we were to keep the subject matter of (D) but apply the reasoning in the stimulus, we would have to say that the reporter did a careful, thorough check (ideally, we’d change the reporter to a doctor to create the appeal to authority). And since the reporter is from an unbiased newspaper, we should be suspicious of, for example, the prime minister's press secretary, who claims that the prime minister is in good health. The edits above would make (D) better, but (D) does not resemble the stimulus in its current form.
Answer Choice (E) says the snowblower salesperson claims that there will be above-average snowfall this winter, but because the salesperson is biased, we can discount the claim. Since the salesperson is biased, (E) is already ruled out.
If we were to keep the subject matter of (E) but apply the reasoning in the stimulus as we did for (D), we would have to say that the snowblower salesperson recently and thoroughly inspected my snowblower and said that it was in good condition. The salesperson is not biased. Therefore, I should be suspicious of my neighbor's claim that my snowblower is in poor condition. You wouldn’t have the snowblower salesperson offer his opinion on the weather since that’s not within his domain of expertise.
This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question.
The stimulus says that a club wanted to determine whether it could increase attendance by changing its weekly meeting from Tuesday to another day. So at one Tuesday meeting, the club's president took a survey of all members present, and 95% said they had no difficulty attending on Tuesdays. The club president therefore concluded that the attendance problem was not due to scheduling conflicts.
This is strange. Why did the president survey the members already present at a Tuesday meeting on whether Tuesday is a good day? They already showed up to the meeting, so Tuesday is obviously a convenient day for them. And while you can say that the Tuesday meeting was not an issue for the Tuesday attendees, you cannot draw the same conclusion about all members. This is the big flaw in the argument. The members present on Tuesday are an unrepresentative sample, and they specifically do not represent the people who were not present on Tuesday.
Here is a helpful analogy. Say I am an ice cream shop owner who only sells vanilla ice cream and I want to increase my revenue by possibly changing my flavor to chocolate or strawberry. So I survey all of my customers and 95% say they have no problem with the vanilla flavor. I therefore decide that my revenue problem is not due to the flavoring of the ice cream. What a silly argument, right? I am asking people who are already buying my vanilla ice cream if vanilla flavor is the issue. The customers surveyed are not representative of people who are not yet my customers.
Answer Choice (B) says that the reasoning makes a generalization on the basis of a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative. (B) picks up on the cookie-cutter flaw above. The club president makes a generalization about all members on the basis of an unrepresentative sample, the members who had no problem showing up on Tuesdays.
Answer Choice (A) says that the reasoning draws a conclusion on the basis of circular reasoning. This is not an instance of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning has conclusions and premises that effectively say the same thing, such as “I am the best because no one in the world is better than me.”
If you picked (A), you might have thought that the argument uses circular reasoning because of the repeated use of Tuesday meeting attendance. However, circular reasoning would look something like “the attendance problem is not due to scheduling conflicts because scheduling conflicts do not create attendance problems.” The stimulus instead has distinct premise and conclusion claims.
Answer Choice (C) says that the reasoning treats a generalization that applies to most cases as if it applied without exception. But the conclusion explicitly accounts for possible exclusions because it says the attendance problem was not due primarily to scheduling conflicts. For (C) to be correct, the argument would have to say that since most members of our club said that weekend meetings are okay, weekend meetings are okay for everybody in our club.
Answer Choice (D) says the reasoning draws a conclusion on the basis of premises that contradict one another. The stimulus does draw a conclusion, but there are no premises that contradict one another.
To contradict the first premise, we have to say that a club does not want to figure out if it could increase attendance by changing its weekly meeting. To contradict the next premise, we have to say that at one Tuesday meeting, the club president did not take a survey. To contradict the last premise, we have to say that of those surveyed, 95% said that they did have difficulty with a Tuesday meeting. None of these contradictory statements are present in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (E) is the oldest mistake in the book. It says that the club president’s reasoning is inferring, solely from the claim that a change is not sufficient to solve a problem, that it is not necessary either.
Let's illustrate what the argument would have to look like for (E) to be correct. A club has decided that it wants to double its attendance. It realized that if they move their meetings from Tuesdays to Fridays, their attendance will increase by only 10%. Since this change is not sufficient, it concluded that it is not necessary either.
That’s sufficiency necessity confusion. It’s a flaw because it’s possible that moving the meeting to Friday, while insufficient, is actually necessary. For example, perhaps providing free beer on Fridays will supply the remaining 90% increase. While neither change is independently sufficient, both are necessary.
A
It is presented as an example of the sort of warning referred to in the argument’s overall conclusion.
B
It is a statement that plays no logical role in the argument but that instead serves to impugn the motives of the medical establishment.
C
It is an analogy offered in support of the argument’s overall conclusion.
D
It is an analogy that forms part of a specific objection to the argument’s overall conclusion.
E
It is an analogy offered to clarify the distinction the physician makes between an initial study and a definitive study.
This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question.
The stimulus says that making some types of products from recycled materials is probably as damaging to the environment as it would be to make those products from entirely nonrecycled material. This is the conclusion. If we use soda cans as an example, making soda cans from recycled aluminum is just as damaging to the environment as making them from new aluminum.
Why is this so? The premise is that the recycling process for those products requires as much energy as producing them from raw materials, and almost all energy production damages the environment. Okay, so producing a recycled aluminum can and a new aluminum can are equally damaging to the environment in terms of energy production.
But does that mean they are equally damaging to the environment, period? What about the actual materials used? Surely we cannot assume that energy production is the only factor that determines environmental damage. The fact that a recycled can’s aluminum came from other cans and not aluminum mines has to count for something.
The reasoning here is cost-benefit analysis, and the author failed to consider other costs and benefits. The argument accounted for energy production as a component of environmental damage but forgot to account for other components. We’re not looking at causal reasoning.
Since we spotted the flaw, let’s turn to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (B) says that the argument treats an effect of energy-related damage as if it were instead the cause of such damage. What is the effect of energy-related damage? Maybe we will see 80-degree weather in New York on Christmas, but why is this relevant? The argument is not even close to a causal one and (B) does not describe the argument’s flaw.
Answer Choice (E) says that the argument presumes that simply because one phenomenon follows another, the earlier must be a cause of the later. Both (B) and (E) describe cookie-cutter flaws related to causation, and if such flaws were actually present in the argument, they would be the right answer choice. But (E) has nothing to do with this argument.
Answer Choice (A) says that the argument uses the word “environment” in one sense in the premise and in a different sense in the conclusion. (A) describes another cookie-cutter flaw that could be correct in other questions, but not in this one. It accuses the argument of having shifted the meaning of a key term or phrase, but it is clear that the premise and the conclusion are referring to the same concept of environment.
Answer Choice (C) says that the argument fails to consider that the particular types of recycled products that it cites may not be representative of recycled products in general. However, the columnist explicitly said making some types of products from recycled material is probably as damaging, not that recycling is just as damaging in general as making products from new materials. And surely the columnist never cited any particular types of products. While I used soda cans to illustrate the argument, the columnist’s argument was nonspecific.
Answer Choice (D) says that the argument fails to consider that making products from recycled materials may have environmental benefits unrelated to energy consumption. This successfully picks up on the accounting error we spotted earlier. This is a benefit of recycling that the argument failed to account for.
The author also assumes that not completing audits within a year demonstrates a lack of action from the agency to follow through with their initiative.