#15 - Scientists hoping to understand and eventually reverse

[akanshalsat]

Hello! Initially, I got this question wrong because I chose C, in that I thought that it was making the two scenarios similar by confusing that the scientists' goal was to reverse the harmful effects to the ozone vs. them trying to prevent those harmful effects... I'm confused at even writing it out.

Later when I was reviewing, I tested myself and chose A, which is the right answer, and it makes sense.

Just for additional clarity, could someone possibly explain exactly why C doesn't fit? Thanks so much!!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi.

Let's take a look at answer choice (C). For that answer choice to be correct, the argument must confuse preventing harmful effects and reversing harmful effects. However, the stimulus never talks about preventing the harmful effects. The scientists are trying to understand, and hopefully reverse, the harmful effects of pollution. There's no discussion at all of prevention. Since this is a flaw in the reasoning family, and thus part of the prove family of questions, since the concept isn't in the stimulus, it can't be describing the correct flaw.

Hope that helps.
Rachael

[chian9010]

Dear Powerscore,

I understand that B/C/E are incorrect. I have doubt on D because I think "not comparable in any way" is a little too broad and maybe the two events (spacecraft vs factory pollution) can be compared.

However, I am not entirely sure why answer choice is correct.

For me, the flaw I saw from the stimulus is that the author couldn't attribute the ozone damage to spacecraft just because the factory pollution is not justifiable.

Therefore, could any of you please explain why A is the correct? The critical respect means unjustifiable and justifiable?

[Brook Miscoski]

Chian,

What's critical here is that the stimulus establishes that the spacecraft is used to study the ozone layer to figure out how to protect the ozone layer. The stimulus does not establish that the factory is being used to figure out how to protect the ozone layer--the factory is just plain pollution. Therefore, the spacecraft and factory are different in a very important way--the spacecraft can help solve the threat to the ozone layer, while the factory only contributes to the problem, not the solution.

That is the "critical respect" in which the spacecraft differs from the factory, and that is why (A) is the correct choice.

[PresidentLSAT]

This link by power score is game changer.

https://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/lr_flaws.cfm

As someone who lives in a 3rd world country and can't afford anything, I grab on to as much free stuff as I can.

Make it part of your casual reading and it will change your live. It took me all of two seconds to identify the flaw. The experiment being conducted will solve the problem in the stimulus. Maybe one year's worth of pollution as a cost is worth accruing if it will reverse decades worth of pollution. They are not even the same.

[teddykim100]

Hello, I was between A and D for this one and ended up with A because ultimately, that was the best choice.

However, I still have a hard time eliminating D, probably because we've definitely seen questions where the author improperly compares two quantities with each other.

During my drilling session, I was thinking to myself, "Well can't you say that D is correct because, a single trip can be counted as a quantity, and so can the year's pollution amount".

If we take this literally, I definitely recognize how these are not quantities, but still I feel as if they have a chance of being interpreted as such?

Please let me know your thoughts on my thinking process here!

[Robert Carroll]

teddykim100,

There are plenty of improper comparisons on the LSAT, but how often does an author compare things that are not comparable in any way? The issue with an improper comparison (or false analogy, as we sometimes call it) is that the author is trying to compare two things that differ too much in relevant ways for the comparison to work. Rarely, if ever, is no comparison possible - the differences are too great for the author's particular comparison to work, but almost never would the differences be too great for any comparison to work.

Leaving aside the issue of whether there are ever two things so different that no comparison is possible, that's not happening here anyway. The spacecraft damages the ozone layer, as does a factory. The amounts are the same. That analogy is perfect so far! So already answer choice (D) can't be correct - whatever bad comparison the author makes, there was some comparable feature.

Further, answer choice (D) makes answer choice (A) correct anyway! If the quantities are not comparable in any way, then the cases are different in all respects, including critical ones. My point here emphasizes that answer choice (D) is just a much more extreme version of answer choice (A). The author made the mistake in answer choice (A), but didn't go so far as to make the much worse mistake in answer choice (D).

Robert Carroll