LR Question 6 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: If the proposed air pollution measures were to be implemented…
QUESTION TYPE: Flaw
CONCLUSION: If we adopt the proposed measure we will save a billion dollars in health costs.
REASONING: The proposed measures would lower ozone levels by a fifth. We currently spend $5 billion on ozone-related health costs.
ANALYSIS: This argument is assuming that somehow, the amount of money spent on the health costs is proportionate to the ozone levels. Is this necessarily true? No! What if there are long-term health problems that require long-term investments? Then the amount of money most likely won’t decrease. Even if it does decrease, it’s highly unlikely that there would be perfect correlation between the ozone levels and health costs. Few things in life are exactly linear.
___________
- This answer isn’t even a flaw: the conclusion was only about ozone. We don’t care about other types of pollution and the health costs they create. We’re only concerned with ozone levels and ozone-related health costs.
- CORRECT. This argument is assuming that somehow there’s a proportional relationship between ozone levels and health cost. Few things in life are exactly linear.
- It doesn’t matter whether the measures will be adopted. The stimulus is talking about a hypothetical situation, due to the “if”.
- We’re not applying to emotions. People often get emotional about pollution but that didn’t happen in this argument.
Example of flaw: Ozone makes me sad. We need to eliminate all of it or I’ll cry. - This isn’t a flaw. The conclusion is only about pollution, a pollutant in the air. When you are discussing airborne pollutants, it is logical only to discuss air pollution. We’re not concerned about health costs from sources other than ozone.
Recap: The question begins with “If the proposed air pollution measures were to be implemented”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
What type of flaw is this? Confusing probability with certainty?
This argument isn’t confusing probability with certainty. I’m not sure there’s a specific name for this type of flaw, but the flaw in this argument is an unsupported assumption about proportionality.
The argument assumes that a 1/5 reduction in ozone levels will lead to a 1/5 reduction in ozone-related health costs without providing any evidence for this assumed proportional relationship. The relationship between ozone levels and health costs may not be linear or directly proportional; small reductions in ozone may not significantly impact health costs, or the costs may depend on other factors.
Hopefully that helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.