#10- Albert: The government has proposed new automobile

[Bob O'Halloran]

Hi Joshua,
Thank you for the quesion.

You want to pick the answer that most weakens the argument. Your analysis of whether Albert is in a position to make the rebuttal is thoughtful, but not something you need to do on the LSAT.

Let us know if you have other questions.
Bob

Hello,

I understand that D is the best counter to Erin's argument, BUT only if it was coming from someone other than Albert. Albert gives reasoning to his claim that the regulation is unnecessary by raising doubts as to whether PAHs are indeed toxic and cause cancer, mentioning that there are no causal links. If Albert said in his original argument that regulation on exhaust wouldn't provide any significant changes, then I would understand how D could be a counter.

That's why my prephrase was something like: "there are no causal links found for those diseases you mentioned too" - that's why I chose E because he at least stuck to his argument, even though I didn't like the choice myself. To me, if he were to give D as a counter in that context, it sounds like he's just switching his argument from "PAH may not be harmful" to "Oh actually, PAH is produced mostly from tire tears, not the exhaust anyways" which would make his initial argument very unconvincing.

I'm not sure if I'm focusing too much on the flow/context of the conversation but I just feel like any argument that just switches back and forth according to other's responses makes it weak. In these types of questions, do I just purely focus on the answer choice and how it weakens the respondent's argument, or do I need to focus on the connection between the answer choice and the original argument as well? In the case of the latter, what did I do wrong in this case?

Thanks so much in advance!

[Bob O'Halloran]

Hi Joshua,
Thank you for your quesion.

You want to pick the answer that most weakens the argument. Your analysis of Albert's position if thoughtful, but not something we have to do on the LSAT.

Let us know if you have other questions.
Bob

[smtq123]

If most of the PAHs (let's say 51% of the units) are due to wear and tear, Erin could counter saying the other 49% could be from auto exhausts. With the new regulation 49% of the total PAH units could still be removed, which would still result in saving thousands of lives. So, how is this strong rebuttal? Kindly explain.

Thanks in advance!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi smqt,

Good job noting the logical meaning of the word "most." You are right that the answer choice would be even stronger with the word "all" instead of "most." But we aren't looking for the strongest possible weaken answer in the universe. We are looking for the best weaken answer of the choices given. Answer choice (D) doesn't destroy the argument, but it doesn't need to. It just needs to make it less likely than it was that Erin's conclusion is true. If most of the PAHs come from wear and tear of tires, then the focus on emissions won't have as much of an impact as she suggests they will.

Hope that helps!

[smtq123]

Thanks for the explanation. But I am not able to understand how D is better than C.

Doesn't C is saying that: Don't bother about emission regulations, we just to focus on automobile usage reduction.

Would appreciate if anyone can explain C.

Thanks & Regards

[Adam Tyson]

Doesn't C is saying that: Don't bother about emission regulations, we just to focus on automobile usage reduction.

That's not what answer C is saying, smtq123! All it's saying is that if usage goes down, PAHs will go down. But that does nothing to weaken the claim that the regulations would save lives. Erin's argument is still just as strong as it was in the face of answer C.

The job of a weaken answer it to undermine support for the conclusion, so focus on that conclusion. Here, it's that the regulations will save lives. Only answer D has any relevance to that claim, because it suggests that the regulations may be targeting the wrong thing, and therefore might not have the suggested impact.

Here's an analogy: my mom is worried about me gaining weight, so she no longer serves me dessert or second helpings of anything other than vegetables. She claims this will help me be healthier.

Now, would it weaken her claim if I was to respond that I could lose weight if I exercised more, even if she makes no changes to my diet? Not at all, because it's still just as true that cutting back on the desserts and extra portions would help me to be healthier. Exercise would ALSO help, but that doesn't suggest that the dietary changes will NOT help. That's the same problem that answer C has - it may be a viable alternative, but it doesn't undermine the value or impact of the original proposal.