#24 - In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)

The argument concludes that the automotive industry's complaint ought be ignored. That conclusion is based on the observation that in the past, the automotive industry similarly complained that meeting new standards was economically unfeasible and environmentally unnecessary, but new inventions made the standards economically feasible.

The argument is unconvincing because one should not assume that the future will be similar to the past in such details, and because the argument gives absolutely no reason to believe the measures were ever environmentally necessary. Remember, evaluating arguments is about evaluating methods, not about whether you happen to agree with the ultimate position the argument takes.

You are asked to identify the method, so you should focus on the analogy between the past and future, because that is the main argumentative strategy.

Answer choice (A) The argument suggests that the past contradicts the automakers' claims, but does not show that there is definitely a contradiction in the automakers' current premises.

Answer choice (B) The facts suggest that automakers were partially mistaken in the past, but do not show that the automakers are fully mistaken about the present.

Answer choice (C) The argument's own reasoning is flawed, but the argument never once discusses the automakers' reasoning about either the past or current situation.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, and simply sticks to the main strategy, which is to impugn the automakers' current position on the basis of an incorrect past position.

Answer choice (E) Absolutely no direct evidence is provided about the current situation.

[andriana.caban]

Would A be correct if the author had written something like this: "Although the automobile industry argued that ...neither economically feasible nor environmentally feasible they recently sponsored the creation of a car that met the standards and was both economically and environmentally feasible."

Would B be correct if the author had written something like this: "The automobile industry receives it's information from a popular magazine. Recent evidence has come to show that said magazine is discredited due to its inaccurate reporting of certain topics."

What does (C) mean? I'm not sure what pointing out a flaw in the authors reasoning looks like.

Thanks!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Andriana,

For answer choice (a), that's not quite what the answer choice meant. You are describing a contradiction between their statements and their actions (they said they couldn't do X, but they did do X). A contradiction between premises would be something like: the automobile manufacturers said they couldn't do X, and they said they could do X. That would be a contradiction. Those sorts of contradictions are unusual on the LSAT because it's hard to write in a way that makes sense. One example of an internal contradiction would be the following: Everyone should join my study group because it's very exclusive. Something can't be exclusive if everyone can join.

For answer choice (b), that's close. But your statement doesn't actually show that the particular facts mentioned were those that were shown to be discredited, or that the information that they relied on in this instance was actually false. An example of a situation like that described in answer choice (b) would be as follows: Automakers have stated that they are unable to create a car that can go faster than the speed of sound, because nothing humans build can move faster than the speed of sound. However, recent experiments conducted by jets built by humans have shown those jets can move faster than the speed of sound. The automakers were relying on false information (human inventions can't move faster than the speed of sound) to make their conclusion.

For answer choice (c) we don't know how the automakers reached their conclusion, in the past or the present. We just know they claimed meeting the standards was not reasonable. We don't know how they found that. Did they use a survey? Get advice from a psychic? In order to choose answer choice (c) we need to know how the automakers decided, and we need to be able to determine it was problematic.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[SammyWu11201]

Hey! I have two quick questions:

1) How did you arrive that "the catalytic converter enabled automakers to meet the 1970 standards efficiently" to mean that meeting standards is theneconomically feasible? I don't see a bridge between those two.

2) When you say that the past can't be used as a judgment for the future/present, are you saying that just because the catalytic converter was around in 1967 doesn't necessarily mean that it is around today? Because if it was around today, then there is a contradiction to the automakers' argument.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Sammy!

1.) If meeting the standards had not been economically feasible, then the standards never would have been met. The fact that they were able to meet the standards with the introduction of the catalytic converter proves that, in fact, meeting the standards was economically feasible.

2.) The catalytic converter is still around, but the restrictions are new so they cannot necessarily be met with technology that came out several decades ago.. The argument is basically this: Automakers said meeting the 1970 restrictions was impossible, but they were able to do it. Automakers say meeting the new restrictions is impossible. But since they were wrong about the 1970 restrictions being impossible, then they are wrong about about these new restrictions being impossible. But just because the automakers were wrong in the past, this doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong about these new restrictions.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[AspenHerman]

If the question stem was instead a flaw question, would the answer here be a time shift error?

[Adam Tyson]

I think that would be a fair analysis, AspenHerman. Being wrong in a similar situation in the past is being used to show that they must be wrong about the current situation, but the past situation is not sufficient evidence to prove the current one will turn out the same way.