Logical reasoning PrepTest 129 · Section 1 · Question 24

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Acidic pollution is down, and it causes acid rain, so acid rain's environmental damage should also go down.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument brings up a causal relationship between acidic pollution and acid rain. It also establishes a recent trend—acidic pollution is down over the past few decades. From that, it concludes that there should be a drop in the environmental damage associated with acid rain.

While removing the cause is expected to lessen the effect, and there is a temporal element to it—the cause and effect should be somewhat close together in time—there's no indication that the damage in this case can be reversed that quickly. Maybe the acid stays in the environment for centuries once released, or maybe the damage ends up in a positive feedback loop, where a bit of damage just causes more damage, even if the acid rain stops.

And there's also a temporal element to the conclusion itself—it's about what we can "expect" to happen, which predicts the future. Therefore, anything that might reverse the recent trend away from acidic pollution will also weaken this argument.

Any answer suggesting ways that the damage could continue after acidic pollution stops getting pumped into the environment will serve to weaken this argument.

Answer Explanation:
If some environments have developed methods for dealing with acid damage, then you'd expect them to have less acid damage. That lines up with the conclusion of the argument, so this is more on the strengthen side. Since it doesn't weaken the argument, it's the answer.

Key Takeaway:
Temporal elements are almost always relevant to the answer choice analysis when they show up in a stimulus. Causality is also inherently temporal.

Incorrect. Acid-neutralizing buffers would, by definition, prevent the damage caused by acid rain. If those buffers are down, as well, then the same amount of acid would do more damage or, if acid levels are down, it might balance out and there could still be as much damage. This answer weakens the Columnist's prediction of less acid damage, so we can eliminate it.

Incorrect. If the amount of acidic pollution is about to go up again, then we'd expect to see the acid damage go up again, as well—weakening the Columnist's.

Incorrect. This answer highlights that acid rain damage builds up over time regardless of how much there currently is. As such, even if acid rain disappeared, the damage is already done, and we can't expect it to disappear just because the rain did. This answer therefore weakens the argument.

Incorrect. This answer establishes that ecosystems are not as able to protect themselves from acid rain as they used to be. As such, a smaller amount of acid rain could do the same amount of damage, and thus a decrease in the release of acidic pollution might not lower the amount of acid rain enough to overcome that. This answer thus weakens the Columnist's prediction.