Logical reasoning PrepTest 150 · Section 3 · Question 19

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
H: Electric cars pollute less than internal combustion-engine cars. To reduce urban pollution, we should switch to electric.

U: If that's our goal, that switch isn't a good way of achieving it. Electric cars need frequent recharging, which would increase demand on power plants, which pollute a lot.

Answer Anticipation:
Notice the way we rephrased U's conclusion. Since H brings up a specific goal, that becomes key to the debate. H's goal is to reduce urban pollution, and U says that H won't achieve that goal with the electric car plan. Since U brings up power plants, but doesn't connect them to urban areas, H can counter the rebuttal by bringing up a consideration that would provide evidence that urban areas aren't affected by power plants.

Answer Explanation:
This is the correct answer because it suggests H's goal will be achieved by the switch to electric cars since the power plant pollution will be in non-urban areas. This answer might seem wrong because the plants are still polluting, and this is why it's important to note the specific goal promoted by H and that U's conclusion is a disagreement with that specific conclusion/goal.

Key Takeaway:
When a goal or purpose is noted on the LSAT, pay attention, as it will likely be important to getting the answer correct. This is especially true when the purpose is a part of the conclusion.

Incorrect. This answer probably sounds good to anyone concerned about the environment, but it doesn't address the specific argument raised here about the specific impact on urban pollution.

Incorrect. Since this answer doesn't connect to the frequency of charging, or the total amount of demand generated by them, it doesn't even let us know if, overall, pollution goes down. That said, it also doesn't specifically address the issue of urban pollution, which is integral to this argument.

Incorrect. First, this answer doesn't specifically address the issue of urban pollution. Second, it doesn't state whether this moderating leads to an overall decrease in pollution.

Incorrect. The issue in question isn't whether demand could be met, but rather whether what impact that demand will have on pollution, and, specifically, urban pollution.