PrepTest 157

[lcid:3724] Prep Test 157 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

 Some environmentalists claim that the higher the international debt a nation carries, the more likely it is that the quality Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary Topic: Social Sciences

Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Environmentalists' conclusion on debt/low quality of life and premises ("exports promotion hypothesis" holds that debt causes nations to harm their environments by producing many exports; governments reduce domestic spending)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Some environmentalists' views:
      • The international debt a nation carries lowers its quality of life, as repaying the debt depletes national resources, increases pollution, and decreases domestic spending (first and second sentences)
    • List of two reasons international debt lowers a nation's quality of life, according to some environmentalists:
      • "Exports promotion hypothesis": Nations shift their focus to exporting many goods, which causes more environmental damage than domestic goods (third through fifth sentences)
      • The government spends less on domestic services like healthcare, education, water, and sanitation when it carries a high debt (seventh and eighth sentences)
    • Example of the "exports promotion hypothesis," according to some environmentalists:
      • A nation might cut down forests for timber or open up land to plant cash crops (sixth sentence)
    • Example of how reducing domestic spending could harm a nation's quality of life, according to some environmentalists:
      • The government eliminates subsidies for practices that reduce pollution or conserve resources (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • The author's criticism that the evidence for the environmentalists' claims (some studies don't show a correlation between debt/deforestation; cutting domestic spending can help the environment)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • The environmentalists' evidence is weak, as studies do not show a consistent correlation between debt and deforestation or pollution, and reigning in domestic spending can help the environment (first through fifth sentences)
      • So, we don't know whether a nation's quality of life is connected to the size of its debt (seventh sentence)
    • Example of how reducing domestic spending could not harm a nation's quality of life, according to the author:
      • The government might decide to abandon plans to build new dams or roads or to eliminate subsidies that promote fertilizer or pesticide use (sixth sentences sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "weak" (first sentence); "indicates that" (second sentence); "only a slight positive correlation" (third sentence); "in fact" (third sentence); "it is just as likely" (fifth sentence); "must be considered unknown" (seventh sentence); "a case could be made" (last sentence); "may rein in potentially harmful spending" (last sentence)

Main Point:

There is very little evidence to support some environmentalists' claim that the more international debt a nation carries, the more its quality of life suffers.


Meta-Structure?

Criticizing a Viewpoint: We think this passage best fits the Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure.* In such a passage, the author describes a view held by another person or group and then criticizes that view. Importantly, the author's argument should focus primarily on why the view is wrong, unjustified, or misguided.

And that's what the author does in this passage. The author focuses on the "weak" evidence for the environmentalists' argument about the relationship between a nation's international debt and quality of life (P2, S1). The author points out that there is very little evidence to support the environmentalists' claims that debt leads to deforestation and pollution or that a reduction in domestic spending will necessarily harm a nation's quality of life. In other words, the author focuses on why the environmentalists' conclusion is unjustified by the available evidence.

When a passage uses a Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure, the main point is generally the author's central criticism. So, the main point of this passage is relatively straightforward: "There is very little evidence to support some environmentalists' claim that the more international debt a nation carries, the more its quality of life suffers."

*As is often the case for passages that fall into the Critical Meta-Structure family, several other major Critical Meta-Structures could describe this passage. If you labeled this as a Rebutting Critics or Correcting the Record passage, you would still develop a valuable understanding of the passage's main point and structure.


Last Thoughts?

This author takes issue with the environmentalists' evidence. Does this mean that the author thinks that the environmentalists' conclusion is false? That international debt doesn't reduce a nation's quality of life?

Nope. We have no idea whether international debt reduces a nation's quality of life. We only know that the environmentalists' haven't proven that claim. This idea is often tested on the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT, too, so let’s dig into it.

Sometimes, this line of flawed reasoning is referred to as the "absence of evidence" flaw. Disproving someone's evidence doesn't disprove their conclusion. And that's because people sometimes support true conclusions with bad evidence. One could say, "We can conclude that a diet full of fruits and vegetables is healthy since I just ate a cheeseburger and I feel great." Obviously, that evidence is very bad (for many reasons). But I think we can still agree that the conclusion is true.

The same thing applies to this argument. Just because the author argues that environmentalists lack good evidence for their conclusion doesn't mean that the environmentalists' conclusion is automatically false. After all, perhaps researchers will eventually generate evidence that proves that international debt reduces a nation's quality of life. For this reason, we shouldn't select answer choices that say or imply that the environmentalists' conclusion is false or that international debt does not reduce a nation's quality of life.

Question prompt

The passage suggests that Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Strategy Overview

Review the main point, and use notes or highlighted/underlined text in the passage to recall the author’s attitude, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the main point/author’s attitude

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us about the author's view but doesn't provide any insight into the topic of the correct answer or where the supporting information might show up in the passage. This means the correct answer is likely to relate back to the author's main point. As such, we'll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). We can also review any notes about the author's attitude or any text we highlighted because it expresses the author's opinion. After doing that, we can head to the answer choices, tabling those that don't line up with the main point. For those answer choices that conform to the author’s main point, we'll use our notes and the passage to see if it's correct.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Borrowing from other countries Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    Is this consistent with the main point or related to our notes on the author's views?

    This answer choice expresses a really bold, SCOTUS-y "universal" claim. These claims are very hard to support, so we don't like these kinds of strongly worded answer choices on Author Agree questions. Moreover, the author's main point is that there's little evidence for environmentalists' argument that international debt can decrease a nation's quality of life. So, the author wouldn't conclude that borrowing has never had a positive effect. The author would say that we don't fully understand the relationship between debt and quality of life. For these reasons, we can eliminate — or at least table — (A) without checking the passage.

    If we had to check the passage to eliminate (A), we'd see that the author acknowledges that borrowing from other countries could lead to beneficial policies. The author says that the government might abandon plans to build new dams and roads or eliminate subsidies that promote fertilizer or pesticide use, both of which would help the environment (P2, S6). The author also says the government could adopt a more responsible fiscal policy or reduce harmful spending (P2, S8). So, the author would undoubtedly disagree with (A).

  2. B
    Subsidies for practices that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    Is this consistent with the main point or related to our notes on the author's views?

    Neither the main point nor our notes bring up whether subsidies to reduce pollution are effective. Moreover, this answer choice expresses a really bold, SCOTUS-y "universal" claim. The claim is also expressed with a high degree of certainty. These claims are very hard to support, so we don't like Author Agree answer choices that employ this sort of language. For these reasons, we can eliminate — or at least table — (B) without checking the passage.

    If we had to check the passage to eliminate (B), we'd see that the author never brings up subsidies to reduce pollution. The author only discusses subsidies for fertilizers and pesticides, which the author suggests would damage the environment (P2, S6). So, we don't know whether the author would agree with (B).

  3. C
    Encouraging the production of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    Is this consistent with the main point or related to our notes on the author's views?

    Neither the main point nor our notes discuss this relationship between exports and decreased domestic shipping. Moreover, this answer choice expresses a cause-and-effect relationship ("leads to"). Such relationships are difficult to prove, so we don't like answer choices that assert these relationships on Author Agree questions. For these reasons, we can eliminate — or at least table — (C) without checking the passage.

    If we had to check the passage to eliminate (C), we wouldn't find any support for it. The environmentalists argue that increasing the production of exports and reducing domestic spending are both the effects of high international debt (P1, S4, S7). However, neither the author nor the environmentalists imply that reduced domestic spending is the effect of increased export production. So, we don't know whether the author would agree with (C).

  4. D
    International debt payments are Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    Is this consistent with the main point or related to our notes on the author's views?

    Neither the main point nor our notes specify when international debt payments are a problem. Moreover, this answer choice expresses a really bold, SCOTUS-y "only" claim. These claims are very hard to support, so we don't like these kinds of strongly worded answer choices on Author Agree questions. For these reasons, we can eliminate — or at least table — (D) without checking the passage.

    If we had to check the passage to eliminate (D), we'd see that this isn't supported. In the second paragraph, the author acknowledges that international debt payments can sometimes lead to good consequences even when domestic spending is low — such as when nations are forced to abandon plans to build new dams or roads or to eliminate subsidies that promote fertilizer or pesticide use, which would help the environment (P2, S6). So, the author would probably disagree with (D).

  5. E
    A nation can benefit Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    Is this consistent with the main point or related to our notes on the author's views?

    Yes! Our note for the second paragraph says that the author argues that "cutting domestic spending can help the environment." That's enough to select (E), especially if you've already eliminated (A) through (D). Moreover, this answer choice uses the soft, easy-to-support language ("can") we like to see in Author Agree answer choices.

    If we needed to check the passage to verify that (E) is correct, we'd find ample support. The author says that the government might abandon plans to build new dams or roads and eliminate subsidies that promote fertilizer or pesticide use, both of which would help the environment (P2, S6). The author also says the government could adopt a more responsible fiscal policy or reduce harmful spending (P2, S8). These are some ways that decreasing domestic spending can benefit a nation, so the author would definitely agree with (E).

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion