#21 - Mark: Plastic-foam cups, which contain environmentally

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (C)

In this dialogue, Mark argues that paper cups should be used rather than Styrofoam, which persists indefinitely. Tina disagrees, citing several statistics to support the notion that paper production and transportation is bad for the environment.

The question that follows asks for the choice that would best counter Tina. In other words, the right answer choice should weaken Tina’s arguments against paper, or provide additional reasons to avoid Styrofoam.

Answer choice (A): This choice would only serve to strengthen Tina’s argument against the use of paper cups, so it cannot be the right answer to this Weaken question.

Answer choice (B): Tina argues against the use of paper cups, and this choice would strengthen her case, not weaken it.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, because this choice shows that Tina’s evidence is outdated, and that energy mills are no longer powered by petroleum.

Answer choice (D): Again, Tina is arguing against paper cups, and thus for foam cups. As such, this choice would not weaken her argument; if anything it would strengthen her case.

Answer choice (E): Since Tina is arguing against the production and use of paper cups, this choice strengthens her argument and thus cannot be the right answer to this Weaken question.

[thecmancan]

Hi, this question confused me.

I interpreted that Mark argued for paper cups based on harmful by-product and lasting environmental harm of foam cups. I don't believe he considered the production costs of the two in his argument.

Tina on the other hand, spend some time on the production costs along with harmful by-products and lasting harm.

So my pre-phrase was that Mark could criticize Tina for adding on production costs when he did not consider that yet.

So answer A captures that idea for me.Mark would point this out to say that Tina should not consider production costs if to make an accurate comparison. Her argument should only contain a comparison of harmful by-products and lasting environmental impact, NOT production costs.

Also for C, I don't see how this impacts the answers. Do we know if burning waste wood is more or less environmentally harmful than burning petro? Answer C falls into a type of trap of answer category that makes a statement without actually addressing the problem.

So to compare Coke vs. Pepsi for better taste, answer C would say something like: the production Pepsi now uses only cane sugar instead of other sweeteners. Well, does that make it taste better or not? We don't know. Cane sugars sounds tasty, but can we really assume that fact on the LSAT, especially without knowing how foam cups are produced (if they already using wastewood or solar power?). So it really doesn't move the needle.

Similarly in C, if it said that paper mills now burn waste wood, which were previously allowed to simply decompose, releasing harmful methane in the air (another LSAT question haha), then I would definitely pick C because it addressed the actual comparison instead of just being another way to fuel paper mills.

At this point, I can think through why A is not a super strong answer. But is this one of those situations where we have to juggle in our heads which assumption made on the competing answer choices is the more "likely" or less "presumptuous" and pick that one?

[Paul Marsh]

Hi thecmancan! You've touched on several points in your post. Let me start with your last paragraph. For this question, we are essentially being asked to Weaken Tina's argument. For Weaken questions, we absolutely do not need to judge which answer choice is the most likely to occur. The only thing we're considering is which answer choice would serve to drive a wedge between the premises and the conclusion of an argument. Weaken questions can be tricky enough as is - don't make them harder by worrying about which answer choices are actually realistic!

With that initial point out of the way, let's walk through how to approach this problem. With all Weaken questions, we want to first identify the conclusion, then identify the premises, and then note any gaps between the conclusion and the premises. We start by identifying the conclusion. Here, that's Tina's assertion that "they [paper cups] are a worse choice [than plastic cups]". She is responding to Mark's argument that paper cups are better. Second, we identify the premises. Tina's argument has four premises: 1) A study done 5 years ago showed that the production of paper cups exhausted more natural resources than the production of foam cups, 2) Transporting paper cups uses more energy, 3) Paper mills produce water pollution, and 4) The decay of paper cups produces harmful methane. Next, we look for gaps between the conclusion and the premises. Do the premises lead us 100% logically to the conclusion? Or is there some gap between where the premises lead us, and what the conclusion actually says?

Here, Tina's conclusion (that paper cups are a worse choice than plastic cups) seems to have very strong support from her premises. But do her premises unquestionably get us to her conclusion? Not necessarily. There are a few gaps between her premises and her conclusion.

Gap 1. Her premises only deal with environmental factors, but her conclusion goes beyond environmentalism in scope. In other words, her conclusion doesn't just say "paper cups are worse for the environment than plastic cups", it goes ahead and says "paper cups are just straight up worse than plastic cups, full stop". This conclusion is too broad. A hypothetical answer choice that could exploit this gap would say something like, "Despite the environmental harms of paper cups, a multitude of other factors including financial considerations and consumer preferences make paper cups the better choice".

Gap 2. Her first premise relies on a study. Almost anytime a study pops up on the LSAT, it's open to attack. Maybe the sample was biased or too small. Maybe the study was carried out poorly. Maybe the study is out of date. Polls, studies...drawing conclusions from a sample is always inherently limited (just look at election polls!), and so when one pops up in an LSAT question, be aware of those limitations. Here, the study is five years old. A hypothetical answer choice could point that out, and indeed that is exactly what the correct answer choice ends up doing!

(Since you mentioned it wasn't super clear to you how Answer Choice (C) weakened Tina's argument, let's use your Coke vs. Pepsi theme to show another basic example of what Answer Choice (C) is doing. Here's an argument I just made up: "A study from 1997 showed that a Coke can contains roughly five times as much aspartame as a Pepsi can. Too much aspartame can cause brain cancer. Therefore Pepsi is better for your health than Coke." Obviously you can poke many holes in that argument, but one big gap it makes a conclusion about what's better for your health today, by relying on a study that's 22 years old! A good answer choice that would Weaken that argument would be something like, "In the years since that study, Coke has drastically reduced the amount of aspartame in its product to be similar to the amount in Pepsi". That weakens the argument because it makes the premises about aspartame irrelevant to the argument's conclusion.)

Gap 3. Her premises don't really dispute Mark's points. Styrene is still bad, and plastic-foam persisting forever in the environment is also still bad. So the possibility exists that even though everything Tina said is true, Mark's points are so powerful that they outweigh what she's saying. A hypothetical answer choice like, "Styrene is 100 times worse than methane for the environment" could exploit this gap.

We're looking for Mark to respond in one of these ways, since they Weaken Tina's argument by taking advantage of its gaps. Answer Choice (C) successfully does so, by emphasizing that the information cited by the study in her first premise is outdated and that the production process for paper cups has changed. This weakens her argument because the information contained in her first premise is no longer relevant to her conclusion.

That's sort of a formulaic run-down of how to approach this problem.

A couple additional points addressing some of your specific concerns. First, about your Pre-Phrase. Neither Mark nor Tina at any point address financial production costs. But both of them do address the environmental costs of production. So I'm not quite sure what your Pre-Phrase is referring to, but it's not a good way to Weaken Tina's argument. Again, we are focusing on the gaps between Tina's premises and her conclusion and how they can be exploited.

And lastly - Answer Choice (A) doesn't do what we want here, because it only strengthens Tina's argument (by pointing out additional environmental costs of producing paper).

Hope that helps! Feel free to follow up with any more specific questions, and make sure to look back at the section on Weaken problems in the LSAT Course books if you find yourself having trouble with these.