RC Question 23 Explanation
DISCUSSION: The lack of a main point question indicates that the LSAC thinks the themes of this passage are fairly clear. Instead, you’re expected to have a command of the details.
The wrong answers here are designed to bog you down. Don’t spend time on any of them until you’ve looked at all of them. Your goal should be to identify the 1-2 most plausible answers, quickly. Then, check the passage to see if you can confirm them.
___________
- Not only does the passage not mention experiments – it doesn’t even mention laboratories!
- The passage doesn’t mention this. All we know is that in 1974 there were five years of global CFC production in the stratosphere. But we’re not told what concentration this represents, and we’re told nothing about the amounts present in 1987.
- Paragraph three says the scientists made an estimate in 1974. The same paragraph later says that Molina was invited to testify before Congress – but it doesn’t say if the invitation was for 1974 or a later year.
- The passage doesn’t address this. The fact that chlorine causes damage doesn’t mean it’s the only possible cause of damage.
- CORRECT. Chlorine is. See lines 26-33. A single chlorine molecule can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules! (And no other cause is mentioned)
This was pretty confusing to come to the conclusion E. Even in your answer, “and no other cause is mentioned” feels like it doesn’t definitively say it’s the most damaging. It just states “including chlorine” in the passage, but that doesn’t exclude the other constituent elements. Fluorine or carbons could be more damaging, but they never said any details of it
This is definitely a question where the process of elimination plays a big role. E isn’t a perfect answer, but based on the passage’s message, we can reasonably infer that chlorine is the biggest issue with CFCs (because the article gives it a heavy focus).
The other options are either completely absent from the passage (A, B, C) or a bigger stretch to infer than E (D). So E, despite not being perfect, is the question best answered by the passage.
My issue with E is that it was never indicated that chlorine was the MOST damaging to ozone. It was the chemical they observed to produce a lot of damage to the ozone.
I chose A because while the passage did not necessarily say it was an experiment, line 22 says “they observed that, when released into the lower atmosphere..” I doubt they waited until someone randomly released the chemicals to observe their effects on the ozone. Most likely, they physically released the chemicals by spraying the aerosol can, then observed how this affected the ozone. Is that not indicative of a typical scientific experiment?
Is this just one of those bad questions that isn’t well phrased, but we must simply accept LSAT’s reasons and move on or is my logic flawed?
The question says which answer most helps to explain. The prompts really matter. We don’t need to prove the answer 100%.
But they said they observed CFCs, and watched them breakdown in the atmosphere. Chlorine was the only component mentioned, so presumably it is the most damaging. This is like 95% certainty and it’s enough for the prompt. It would be odd if another component was more damaging and the author failed to mention it.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.