Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 1 · Question 5

Incorrect. First, the plan could involve planting trees only on public land. Second, the Minister could have a large budget for providing such a financial incentive.

Incorrect. The Minister doesn't claim that the deforestation is a cause of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, just that planting trees—which are established as absorbing carbon dioxide—will help to reduce emissions.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Goal Ð Reduce carbon dioxide emissions substantially over the next decade
Fact Ð Trees absorb carbon dioxide
Method/Conclusion Ð Plant a large number of trees (will help)

Answer Anticipation:
The Minister has stated a goal—substantially reducing carbon dioxide emissions over the next decade. She also has an approach to it—planting a large number of carbon dioxide absorbing trees. However, there's an important caveat there—she says that this will "help" achieve the goal. So she's claiming this is a partial solution to the problem, not a complete solution. Which is an important distinction! If the Minister suggested planting trees would meet their commitment, then any answer suggesting that it's less than a complete solution would weaken this argument. However, since the conclusion is that it will help to meet the commitment, we actually need to find evidence this won't be beneficial.

As such, we should expect trap answers that suggest it's not a complete solution, and a correct answer that highlights, on balance, this method won't contribute to the goal.

Answer Explanation:
The stated goal is to reduce carbon emissions over the next decade. The Minister's plan is to plant a bunch of trees. If planting those trees will release more carbon dioxide than the trees will absorb over the next decade—again, the timeline of the stated goal—then the argument is completely undermined, so this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
The difference between partial and complete solutions to a problem, or a partial or complete method of accomplishing a goal, is important and repeatedly tested on the LSAT. Whenever you're in a question dealing with these concepts, be sure to determine what the author is claiming.

Incorrect. The Minister's stated goal isn't to save the world—it's to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As such, even if scientists think that the goal needs to be on a shorter timeline, that's outside the scope of this argument about fulfilling this goal/commitment.

Incorrect. The Minister's commitment/goal is directly related to carbon dioxide, and the conclusion is about this commitment, not an overall commitment to ending global warming. As such, these other gases are out of scope.