LSAT 1 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q9

LR Question 9 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally …

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken

CONCLUSION: Businesses that might cause environmentally damaging accidents will now install adequate safeguards.

REASONING: Fines for such accidents are now more expensive than the cost of preventing them. Since businesses want to protect profits, they’ll choose the cheaper route.

ANALYSIS: This is a classic cost-benefit argument. If the cost of fines > cost of prevention, and businesses want to maximize profits, they’ll act to avoid the bigger cost.

We want to challenge this assumption. You can show that businesses might not recognize this cost-benefit comparison.
Or even if they know this, they might still not act on it.

___________

1. CORRECT. If businesses underestimate how likely accidents are, they may not see prevention as necessary. So they’ll choose not to invest in safeguards because “this won’t happen to us.”
2. This may strengthen the argument. If businesses think strategically, they’ll probably compare costs over time and act rationally.
3. This doesn’t challenge the reasoning at all. It aligns with the assumption that businesses will act if it makes financial sense.
4. This is very vague. Even if fines are “ordinary expenses”, that doesn’t mean they’re ignored. Businesses still care about keeping expenses down. This doesn’t show that they would accept or ignore the fine over preventing it.
5. Off-topic. We’re concerned with actual cost comparison or decisions on accidents, not about marketing and image.