PT47.S1.Q22 - columnist: there are certain pesticides

Accounts Playable

This LR section killed me. I spent all day BRing questions 22, 24, and 26 in this section. This is another one that I am just lost on. I eliminated every answer choice, so I pretty much guessed 1/5 on this one. Can someone break this one down completely?
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-22/

c.janson35

I also find this question to be really tough. What I think is really important to note is the strength of the conclusion. The author states that the U.S. Exporting banned pest not only jeopardizes the health of other countries' consumers, but also GREATLY impacts the health of US consumers because they can be used on products imported back into the U.S. And these criticisms are of the effects of specifically the U.S. exporting the pests--that there is some harm that results from the U.S. engaging in these practices. So we would expect that when the cause isn't there the effect also isn't there. So, if the U.S. stopped exporting these pests we would expect that the chance of harm would also GREATLY decrease.

Consider this analogy: I accuse X of significantly harming Y by smoking in Y's presence. That X's second hand smoke was really detrimental to Y's health. But what if X and Y were in a room with 7 other people that were all smoking, then would it still be accurate to say that X is really harming Y? Not really, X's addition can be reasonably be assumed to be negligible in the context of the entire room.

A: has nothing to do with exporting to other counties or being imported back to US.

B: we don't care about the pests manuf in the U.S. That aren't banned.

C: this speaks to the above analogy. How harmful is the U.S.' Actions if many other countries are exporting the banned pests? Even if the U.S. Stopped, the effect would still remain which is enough to doubt the strong conclusion.

ok, but we already know that the imported crops still pose a risk. Also, greater risk in other countries doesn't mean small risk in U.S.

E: again we don't care about the pests not banned in the U.S.. The conclusion is about exporting pests banned in the U.S.

Tough question, hope this helps!

nye8870

Also, I think it is important to think about the possibility that out of the large pool of "US banned" pesticides that are out there, there is no way of knowing that the US born pesticides are the same ones that make it back into the US. Maybe it's the pesticides manufactured by, I don't know, Columia??..that make there way into the US. If that is the case, then the practice (as the stim defines it) has zero effect on the US.

extramedium

@"c.janson35" said:
I also find this question to be really tough. What I think is really important to note is the strength of the conclusion. The author states that the U.S. Exporting banned pest not only jeopardizes the health of other countries' consumers, but also GREATLY impacts the health of US consumers because they can be used on products imported back into the U.S. And these criticisms are of the effects of specifically the U.S. exporting the pests--that there is some harm that results from the U.S. engaging in these practices. So we would expect that when the cause isn't there the effect also isn't there. So, if the U.S. stopped exporting these pests we would expect that the chance of harm would also GREATLY decrease.

C: this speaks to the above analogy. How harmful is the U.S.' Actions if many other countries are exporting the banned pests? Even if the U.S. Stopped, the effect would still remain which is enough to doubt the strong conclusion.

@nye8870 said:
Also, I think it is important to think about the possibility that out of the large pool of "US banned" pesticides that are out there, there is no way of knowing that the US born pesticides are the same ones that make it back into the US. Maybe it's the pesticides manufactured by, I don't know, Columia??..that make there way into the US. If that is the case, then the practice (as the stim defines it) has zero effect on the US.

Sounds solid. You pointed out the possibility that the U.S. is not to blame, diminishing the idea that this health risk is directly attributable to this PRACTICE in the U.S.

Am I correct in thinking that this argument has two flaws? Seems quite subtle since they are right up against each other in the conclusion. But it would seem that you have to assume that A.) U.S. practice is to blame for this increased risk AND B.) that this practice does indeed GREATLY increase health risk.

C.) points out that some countries other than the U.S. could be to blame if they're exporting massive amounts of banned pesticides back into the U.S., therefore we do not know how much of the increased health risk is even attributable to the PRACTICE in the U.S. and we do not know if this PRACTICE actually even increases health risk GREATLY.

This answer diminishes the second idea that this practice by itself GREATLY increases health risk for U.S. We do not know how much the U.S. is exporting and if other countries are importing more to the U.S., it could be that the PRACTICE in the U.S. is not GREATLY contributing to the health risk. It might be contributing in small amounts, which would suggest that it is not GREATLY increasing risk, but if other countries are importing more to the U.S., this would lead me to think that this PRACTICE is not GREATLY increasing risk to U.S. consumers, because other countries could be the cause instead of this particular practice.

Does that make sense?

inactive

Check the dates when you're replying to comments, guys. This thread is 2 years old.

Cant Get Right

@"Dillon A. Wright" said:
Check the dates when you're replying to comments, guys. This thread is 2 years old.

I saw that Corey had responded, and was excited, but confused, to see him back. Then saw that David was completely lost on something. That's when I knew something was wrong, lol.

extramedium

So we should duplicate threads for questions? @"Dillon A. Wright"

inactive

@extramedium said:
So we should duplicate threads for questions? @"Dillon A. Wright"

Depends. If they're two years old and have a lot of replies, people may overlook them since they think other people have you covered. Let's see how these go.