Premise and Conclusion Analysis Drill #6

[dis]

Hi,

I was reviewing question 6 of this section in the 2020-2021 LR Bible

"Hog framing is known to product dangerous toxic-runoff, which enters the surrounding ecosystem and contaminates the environment. Despite this, however, hog farming practices should not be more closely regulated because research has shown that there is no better method for dispersing effluent from hog farms."

I identified this as a weak argument in my analysis for the following reason: just because research has shown that the current method of dispersion is the most effective known, the argument has not established that the benefits of hog farming outweighs the continued environmental damage. Basically what I'm saying is that the stimulus does not tell us enough about the severity of the environmental damage for us to conclude if it's justified by the hog farming.

This is slightly different from the reasoning in the answer key: "Considering current regulations, it may be the case that closer monitoring or further regulation is required in order to provide sufficient oversight".

I would like to get your opinion on whether or not my reasoning is sound in the context of the LSAT. Have I made an unreasonable assumption in that environmental damage should be further justified, or is it acceptable?

Thanks

[Robert Carroll]

dis,

I think your insight is good in that costs and benefits should be considered. However, I think it could be sharpened a bit by targeting the exact conclusion, which is about regulation. The problem with the argument is that "there is no better way to engage in hog farming than this" does not prove "hog farming shouldn't be more closely regulated". As you say, the costs and benefits of hog farming should be considered, but the costs and benefits of closer regulation of hog farming are also important, because that's what the conclusion is specifically about.

Robert Carroll

[MeliXi]

Hi all,

I have a question about the Premise & Conclusion Analysis drill that comes at the end of Chapter 2 of the LR Bible (2020 version).

Drill 6 (about hog farming): Why isn't the first sentence ("Hog farming is known to produce..." a counter premise? It definitely provides reason to doubt the conclusion + "despite" is a counter-premise indicator and then the author goes on to address this weakness.

(Didn't type out the entire question b/c wasn't sure if there was a rule that I couldn't post the entire question.)

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

I think it's safe to say that it is a counter-premise, MeliXi, and it follows the same structure as the first drill that you asked about in another thread. The author concedes a weakness in their position but then argues that their conclusion is justified notwithstanding that potential objection. We didn't explain it as fully in #6 as we did in #1, but it's the same. Good eye!