QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: The drilling proponent concludes that the opponent’s proposal is ridiculous.
REASONING: He makes an analogy to farms. Each individual farm does not provide very much food compared to the needs of the nation as a whole. Yet collectively the farms are valuable. So too with oil production.
ANALYSIS: The proponent makes use of an analogy. However he ignores the environmental aspect of the opponent’s argument. A single farm doesn’t usually pose a major environmental threat.
- CORRECT. New oil drilling offshore risks environmental disaster. A single new farm usually doesn’t threaten to destroy the environment.
- This is irrelevant to offshore oil drilling. Farming isn’t crucial, it was just used as an analogy.
- So? The main point of the analogy was that small quantities from individual farms (or oil rigs) can add up to a large total.
- This doesn’t help us say whether oil drilling is a good or bad idea.
- Farming was just an analogy. Farm products are irrelevant! The proponent could just as easily have talked about the housing market to make his point.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly