LSAT 144 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q3

LR Question 3 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Editorial: The legislature is considering allowing oil…

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: Alphin Bay shows that there will be damage to the environment.

REASONING: Opponents claim that modern drilling techniques are clean. But drilling began five years ago at Alphin Bay, and it’s messy.

ANALYSIS: This is a classic example of a term shift. We don’t know what ‘modern’ is. Drilling at Alphin Bay began five years ago. Were ‘modern’ techniques used at that time?

Maybe drilling is changing rapidly. If so, pollution at Alphin Bay doesn’t prove anything, and the critics might be right.

We can strengthen the argument by showing that Alphin Bay used ‘modern’ drilling techniques.

___________

1. The argument is about whether oil drilling will cause pollution. This answer is about whether we should allow pollution. Not the same thing.
2. We care whether the techniques will actually cause pollution. Who cares what the company says? They could by lying or mistaken.
3. The argument is about whether drilling will cause pollution, not whether we should drill.
4. CORRECT. If drilling techniques haven’t changed in five years, then the techniques used at Alphin Bay were likely modern techniques, too.
   Therefore, this answer tells us that modern drilling techniques would probably pollute the nature reserve as well.
5. So what? The argument is about whether oil drilling will cause pollution. Other industrial activity shouldn’t affect whether oil drilling causes pollution.