LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8919
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#32719
Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen­—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

This stimulus has a predictably complicated argument/counterargument structure. In fact, there are exactly three positions being expressed in it: the legislature’s, the supporters’, and the editorialist’s own views. The argument/counterargument structure of the stimulus can be summarized as follows:

  • Supporters:

    Premise: ..... Modern drilling methods will be used.

    Conclusion: Oil drilling will not damage the environment at the Cape Simmons Nature Preserve

    ..... ..... ..... Cause ..... ..... ..... ..... Effect

    ..... ..... ..... oil drilling ..... :arrow: ..... damage preserve

    Editorialist:

    Premise: ..... Oil drilling damaged Alphin Bay.

    Conclusion: Oil drilling will damage the Cape Simmons Nature preserve.

    ..... ..... ..... Cause ..... ..... ..... ..... Effect

    ..... ..... ..... oil drilling ..... :arrow: ..... damage preserve
It is imperative to simplify such stimuli and focus on your task at hand: strengthen the editorialist’s argument. The main conclusion of that argument can be found in the third sentence of the stimulus, which begins with the counterpoint indicator “however.” Essentially, the editorialist fears that oil drilling will cause environmental damage to the Cape Simmons Nature Preserve, despite assurances to the contrary. Why? Because it has already damaged Alphin Bay, where oil drilling began five years ago.

The situation at Alphin Bay sounds dire indeed, but remember—in an argument by analogy, the author uses the presumption of similarity between two things (the oil drilling methods) to argue for a similar outcome (environmental damage). When used properly, an analogy can be a powerful tool of argumentation. However, if the author treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect, then the analogy is false and the conclusion is questionable.

If you see an analogy in the stimulus followed by a Strengthen question stem, focus on bolstering the strength of the analogy. This can be accomplished either by providing evidence of additional similarity between the items being compared, or else by rejecting any suspected material differences between them.

Answer choice (A): If the Cape Simmons Nature Preserve is one of the few areas of pristine wilderness remaining in the region, this would surely be a reason to protect it from environmental damage. Nobody is arguing, however, that the preserve should not be protected. The point at issue is whether oil drilling presents an environmental risk, not whether such a risk is permissible.

Answer choice (B): This is the Opposite answer choice, because it shows a difference between the oil drilling situations at Alphin Bay and in the nature preserve. Whereas the companies drilling for oil at the bay never claimed that drilling there would be environmentally safe, such assurances are now being made with respect to drilling for oil in the preserve. Promises are not always kept, of course, but the difference in outlook should be enough to soften the editorialist’s skepticism.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice expresses a belief that is already implied by the argument in the editorial; reiterating the necessity of environmental safety is not terribly helpful. The issue is not whether safety guarantees are necessary, but whether they are reliable.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If the oil drilling methods today are the same as they were five years ago, then the editorialist is justified in her concern that oil drilling will damage the nature preserve—just like it did in Alphin Bay five years ago. This answer choice suggests that the two situations are even more similar than they appear at first, bolstering the strength of the analogy between them.

Answer choice (E): This is another Opposite answer choice. If the environmental damage sustained by Alphin Bay can be attributed to other industrial activities, then the Bay is not a good example of the probable effects of oil drilling in the nature preserve. This answer choice weakens the argument, and is therefore incorrect.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.