#4 - There are only two possible reasons that it would be

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[DaveWave24]

Here’s what I saw with this question. This isn’t an official breakdown, I’m just posting this here since there wasn’t anything already up.

Question Type
Sufficient Assumption- we need an answer choice that in combination with the premises will logically allow the conclusion of the argument.

Answer Prediction
The conclusion is that it would not be wrong to perform mining operations on Mars. We are told that there are only two ways for pollution to be wrong: harming ecosystems and harming humans. Harming humans has been ruled out. We need an answer choice that says that there is no way for pollution on Mars to harm ecosystems.

(A) We were already told “doing so would pollute Mars”. The quantity is not the issue as we aren’t told that small amounts of pollution is okay.

(B) Yes, this covers the need of the pollution being unable to harm ecosystems. Since there are only two possible reasons for it to be wrong to cause pollution and we now have enough to say both reasons are impossible, the conclusion that it would not be wrong follows logically. This is the correct answer choice.

(C) If we interpret the word “costs” to mean all negative effects of mining on Mars, there could be an argument for this answer but moral opinions (the mining being wrong) are usually treated independently of that sort of analysis. We shouldn’t have to worry about that here though because the proximity in the sentence of the word “costs” being used in comparison to economic benefits implies that we are still talking strictly about economic costs.

(D) This doesn’t do anything to prevent the possibility of harming ecosystems on Mars.

(E) This has nothing to do with the logical gap that we need to fill in. We are already told that ecosystems are valuable in themselves, the degree to which that’s true is irrelevant.

Personal Takeaways
I feel like questions like this show that the exact words in the question stem are what matter, not the definition of the question’s category (SA). The things I’ve read say that SA questions completely guarantee the truth of their conclusion, but I don’t see that as the case here. There are possible ways for it to still be the case that mining on Mars is wrong: what if the pollution caused by flying all of the mining equipment to Mars harms people or ecosystems on Earth? Even though the stimulus doesn’t make a statement that directly rules out that example, it makes it sounds like they are just talking about what’s happening over on Mars. When we look at lsat questions we always have to be looking at it from a lens of thinking: what are the test-makers trying to get at here? It’s pretty clear what the intent was. When we are presented with this argument in combination with answer B the normal reaction is “yeah that follows logically”, unless you’re being that obnoxious tryhard who just wants to undermine the teacher.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Dave,

Good job with your analysis of this question!

You are right that the argument is assuming that the pollution would be confined to Mars and wouldn't affect any other human population or ecosystem (on Earth or anywhere else, such as space stations, etc.). The stimulus states that mining "would pollute Mars," but doesn't clarify that it would only pollute Mars. (I'm no astronomer, but I imagine that this assumption is probably a reasonable one given the distance from Earth to Mars.) Nevertheless, the argument is making this assumption.

[DaveWave24]

You're right that any chemicals/pollutants flying the distance from Mars to Earth is illogical and doesn't require consideration. I meant that the energy required to fly the equipment there would have to be generated on Earth and would cause pollution here, which I feel is a notable gap in the argument. My point is that we have to be able to identify the intent of the lsat writers in order to see why this gap should be overlooked.

[Dana D]

Hey Dave,

I think that's a good line of reasoning. You don't want to get trapped in all the rabbit holes of possibilities on the test - like you said, the wrtier's intent matters, and although the alternative possible sources of pollution that you identified could come into play, we don't need to consider them in order to answer this question. Good job!