LSAT 2 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q25

LR Question 25 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States…

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: We should not listen to automakers.

REASONING: In the past, they claimed a similar proposal was impossible. Yet they were able to meet the standards of the 1970 Clean Air Act with ease.

ANALYSIS: The argument against the automakers relies on past failure to predict technological feasibility. We are looking to support the automakers, so we need an answer that suggests this time is different. Something that says their concerns are more legitimate or justified now than they were in 1970.

___________

1. CORRECT. The new regulations are tougher than the old regulations. Therefore it might be impossible to meet the new regulations even if it was easy to meet the old ones.
2. This would make it easier to meet the new emissions standards, and weaken the argument of the automakers.
3. This weakens their argument since it’s now possible that they could comply with this legislation even without new technology.
4. This doesn’t help. Unless there are fewer cars this will make compliance difficult.
5. How would this affect the argument that complying with the new law would be expensive?

Recap: The question begins with “In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States”. It is a Strengthen question. Learn how to master LSAT Strengthen questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.