#9 - Many airlines offer, for a fee, to “offset” the carbon

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—Principle. The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[Tami Taylor]

Hello!

Can you help me understand why (B) is the correct answer and whether I'm dissecting the argument in the correct way?

From what I can tell, there's a gap in the argument. The conclusion is that the airline schemes are almost entirely ineffective at reducing carbon emissions. The intermediate conclusion, in the second sentence, tells us why -- no carbon emissions are prevented by the airline schemes, since the projects that the airlines/airline passengers are contributing to would have occurred without their donations. When I first read this, I think, "Huh, that's a big jump. I still don't understand why the donations aren't making any contribution at all to the fight against carbon emissions."

If we apply (B) to the stimulus, however, it tells us that since the projects to reduce carbon emissions would have occurred in the absence of airline donations, any reductions in carbon emissions are not a result or consequence of the airline donations.

Am I on the right track with my ~logical reasoning?~

Thank you!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Tami!

Yes, you are on the right track. With Strengthen-Principle questions like this, you're really just looking for a principle in the answer choices that matches the reasoning above. A principle is just a broad rule. So basically you're looking for a rule that says that if the premise is true, then the conclusion is true.

If we break down this argument, it is basically:

Premise: in most cases the projects that reduce carbon emissions would have proceeded even without using money from the carbon emissions offsetting fee
Conclusion: no carbon emissions are prevented by the fee

Answer choice (B) states: "If an outcome would have occurred in the absence of a certain action, then the outcome was not a consequence of that action."

This matches the reasoning in the argument because the premises are basically saying that the reduction in carbon emissions (outcome) would have occurred in the absence of the offset fee (action) and the conclusion is then saying that the reduction in carbon emissions (outcome) is not due to the offset fee (action).

It really is just about breaking down the reasoning in the argument and then finding the rule that matches it, just as you did!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[Tami Taylor]

Got it. Thank you!

[christinecwt]

Hi Team - may I know why Answer Choice A is incorrect? Thanks!

[katehos]

Hi Christine,

Answer choice (A) does not provide a principle that helps strengthen the argument because the principle asserted in (A) is not relevant to the conclusion in the stimulus.

Broken down, the stimulus looks like this:

Premise: Projects by airlines that reduce carbon emissions would have proceeded without the fees
Conclusion: No carbon emissions are prevented by the fees

If we try to apply the principle in (A), that steps taken to mitigate harmful effects of freely chosen actions do not absolve one from the original harm, it does not strengthen the argument. The stimulus does not assert that the fees are meant to absolve someone of responsibility for carbon emissions, it simply argues that the fees are ineffective because they do not actually prevent carbon emissions.

Answer choice (B), on the other hand, helps justify the argument's reasoning! Feel free to refer to previous answers by fellow PowerScore instructors for more clarity on why this is the case.

I hope this helps!
-Kate

[LSATdemon]

Hi!

Quick question, why is D wrong in this problem. I had it narrowed to B or D, but choose B since it refers back to effectiveness.

[Adam Tyson]

The first problem I see when reading answer D, Demon, is that it's about what should be done. That's not relevant, because the author isn't arguing about what should or should not be done, but only about what is, in fact, true (that these schemes are not effective.) Think of it like a conversation:

Author: This is not effective

Answer D: You should only do it if it is effective

Author: Uhh...okay? So I guess they shouldn't do that?

Audience: I still want to know if it's effective or not!!! What's the rule that supports that claim???

The right answer needs to connect the premises to the conclusion. The premise is that these projects would have been done anyway, regardless of the fees. The conclusion is that the fees are therefore not effective. A simple "connect-the-dots" approach is what we need here: if something is going to happen anyway, even if you don't do a thing (the premise), then that thing isn't making it happen (the conclusion).

[lsatlies]

Another deeply flawed question. B claims that if an outcome occurs in the absence of a certain action, then the outcome was not a consequence of that action. This is close to what the author was saying, but absolutely NOT what was being claimed. They aren't claiming that the outcome of reducing carbon emissions isn't a consequence of airline carbon emissions offset donations, they are claiming that these donations have NO IMPACT on the outcome. This is NOT the same thing as saying that the donations didn't cause the carbon emission reductions.

To get B as the correct answer, you have to completely ignore one of the author's premises - that "fees are invested in projects that reduce carbon emissions" - and thereby ignore that they are saying that these fees do not contribute to the action that causes the desired outcome (reducing carbon emissions) to instead falsely claim that they are saying that the airline donations are DIRECTLY failing to reduce carbon emissions. In other words, the author never claims that carbon emissions reductions are not a consequence of airline donations; they are saying that these donations are a totally ineffective contributor to the action resulting in this consequence (projects that directly reduce carbon emissions).

An honest answer to this question that actually matches up with what the author is claiming would be "If an outcome would have occurred in the absence of a certain action, then that action had no impact on the outcome".