#16 - Environmentalist: An increased number of oil spills

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (D)

While the stimulus here covers two questions, each of the questions focuses on a specific portion of the stimulus. This question stem deals only with the statements made by the industry representative and asks us to strengthen the representative's position. That position actually deals with two different, yet related ideas. First is the general idea that the industry should be responsible for devising its own safety standards. Second is the more specific point that the double hull is not feasible because it creates new safety issues and the cost would be burdensome. Therefore, we need to find the answer choice that does the most to strengthen either aspect of the argument.

Answer Choice (A): This answer choice seems to strengthen the environmentalist's argument that double hulls will make the tankers safer. It definitely does not strengthen the industry representative's claims.

Answer Choice (B): This answer choice has nothing to do with the main argument about what should be done and who should be taking responsibility for avoiding oil spills. This answer choice is dealing with what happens after the spill and therefore has does nothing to strengthen or weaken the industry representative's argument.

Answer Choice (C): The industry representative would definitely be against the proposed legislation, but the fact that there is such proposed legislation does nothing to affect the representative's overall argument.

Answer Choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The fact that the double hull increases the risk of explosion directly supports the industry representative's contention that the double hull creates new safety issues.

Answer Choice (E): Again, the industry representative would argue against such legislation, but the fact that it has been enacted does nothing to affect the representative's overall argument.

[kcho10]

Am I correct in saying that D is actually strengthening a premise in the argument? "...because it creates new safety issues"

I was stuck between C and D because of this. Thank you

[Alex Bodaken]

kcho10,

Thanks for the question! You are correct - you could outline the industry rep's argument as such:

Premise #1: Implementing the double-hull proposal is not currently feasible because it creates new safety issues
Premise #2: Furthermore, the cost would be burdensome to the industry and consumers.
Conclusion: The industry alone should be responsible for devising safety standards because of its expertise in handling oil and its understanding of the cost entailed.

You are right that answer choice (D) strengthens premise #1 (it shows a safety issue that could result from a proposed government regulation), thereby strengthening the industry rep's argument. Remember that strengthening a premise of the argument is absolutely one way to strengthen a conclusion.

In terms of (C), as noted above, it simply doesn't effect the argument one way or the other...it is legislation the industry rep would oppose, but it does not effect either the industry rep's or the environmentalist's conclusions.

Hope that helps!
Alex

[glasann]

Isn't this an assumption question? The question stem reads, "which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument of the environmentalist depends"?

[glasann]

Actually, nevermind. I think this begins the same way as another question

https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=4743

[bonnie_a]

I have a question about answer choice C. I thought this strengthens the idea that the industry alone should be responsible for devising safety standards because from the premise that double hulls create new safety issues, requiring double hulls or else wiping the old ones out (as in answer choice C) would cause further safety issues. Since it adds strength to the possibility of experiencing safety issues due to the use of double hulls, I thought it would strengthen the argument that government intervention should not be in. While I do have an understanding of why this might not strengthen the argument at the same time, I thought this could also be interpreted this way.

Also, I ruled D out as I only thought this simply touches on "new safety issues" from one of the premises. I didn't necessarily think this adds new information/evidence to directly strengthen the argument. Could someone help me out with this question? Thank you in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

Answer C does not strengthen the argument, Bonnie, because it does not give us any additional reason to believe that the Industry Representative is correct. It doesn't do anything to confirm that there will be safety issues with double-hulls, and it doesn't do anything to support the claim that the costs would be burdensome. All it does it tell us what the proposed legislation would require, and nothing about whether that requirement would cause any problems.

Answer D strengthens by supporting the claim about safety issues by telling us that double hulls are in fact unsafe. A good strengthen answer doesn't have to address every issue raised in the argument. It just has to be helpful in some way. Think of it this way: if answer D is true, wouldn't you be more likely to agree with the Industry Representative than you would be without that information? If so, then it strengthens the argument by making it more convincing!