LSAT 138 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q16

LR Question 16 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Company spokesperson: In lieu of redesigning our…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken

CONCLUSION: Buying and destroying old cars will reduce pollution more than fixing the factory.

REASONING: Cars made before 1980 cause 30% of local pollution. The plants cause 4% of local pollution.

ANALYSIS: There are at least three problems:

1. They say they are buying “old cars”. But they refer to “cars built before 1980”. Are these the same thing? 
2. How many old cars is the company disposing of? There might be a ton of old cars. If the company buys just a small proportion, they might not reduce pollution much.
3. What do people do after their car is gone? The new cars they buy might still pollute, reducing the impact of the program. (Though not entirely)

I just checked the answers, and it turns out none of the things I thought of are the right answer. I still think this kind prediction is a useful exercise, for two reasons:

• Doing it habitually makes you fast at it, so you get good at predicting answers.
• The very exercise stretches your mind by making you to think about the relevant factors. You’ll be more ready to spot the right answer if you’ve thought about which factors affect pollution.

___________

1. So? They still produce a lot of pollution!
2. This shows the car buying program isn’t expensive. But it tells us nothing about how much pollution is reduced.
3. CORRECT. This shows the cars the company is buying weren’t polluting. So the company is doing almost nothing to reduce pollution!
4. So? From common sense, you should know that not many cars from before 1980 still run. There are many more post-1980 cars. Since both groups produce equal pollution, that means old cars produce much more pollution per car.
5. So? This could be because the campaign had a good marketing effect. It tells us nothing about actual air pollution levels.