Logical Reasoning Question

blakkdoll

Ecologist: It is true that the solution of the problem of global warming will require important changes in the way we use fossil fuels over the long term and that the free market must play an important role in making these changes possible. But these facts should not make us forget how crucial near-term limits on the emissions of "greenhouse gases" are to motivate these changes. When the issue was the limitation of ozone-reducing substances, it was short-term emissions limits that quickly brought the needed technologies to the marketplace. These technologies were not available until the international community had adopted specific limits on ozone-depleting substances.

By which one of the following means does the author of this passage make his case?
(A) making a careful distinction between two key terms
(B) questioning the accuracy of the evidence given to support the opposition's case
(C) using an appropriate analogy
(D) using the literal meaning of a word that could be construed as metaphoric
(E) using premises that are contradictory


What is the passage talking about? And why is the answer "C"?

David Wayne

This isn't a real LSAT question and you really should not be using this to study, unless you are in dire financial straits and are being forced to utilize a friend's or library's [fake] LSAT materials.

I do however sympathize with your lack of clarity on this question and desire to learn, but recommend eschewing fake LSAT question if possible. The argument the ecologist makes appeals to a specific argumentative technique that many [real] LSAT arguments commonly employ - that of the argument by analogy. Arguments by analogy seek to establish their conclusion through an appeal to a situation the argument purports is sufficiently analogous to the argument's situation. At its heart, the argument by analogy intends to use the presumed cogency of the other argument to argue for the cogency of the argument in question. When you see the answer choice 'argue by analogy' on the LSAT, it just means that a (supposed) parallel is drawn between two situations - a different situation and the situation that the question's main argument is itself concerned with. If you insist on using this question for your LSAT preparation efforts, try to identify and distinguish the argument this question is making and the situation it appeals to in support of its conclusion.

An iron law of LSAT preparation is to use only real LSAT questions. In case you didn't know previously, the majority of the questions in the Barron's LSAT book you've picked up contain questions the author has written - likely because licensing fees for real LSAT questions were prohibitively expensive for the publication's (cheap) authors to afford. This is one of those questions. You can purchase real LSAT questions on Amazon, which sells them in 10 preptest bundles for very reasonable prices. 7sage's packages also include many of them (for equally reasonable prices given the inclusion of stellar video-explanations!)

blakkdoll

Yea I do have the prep tests, but I was working on these questions for extra practice. I just didn't understand what the passage is talking about, especially the part where it says, "near-term limits on the emissions of "greenhouse gases" . What does that mean?

ikethelsat

You will never need to know specific terminology to answer a real LSAT question, just vocabulary. This question, fake though it is, also does not require special knowledge.

Near-term means short-term, essentially. Greenhouse gases are gases that contribute to the warming of the earth's atmosphere by trapping heat. Emissions are... you know. Emissions? Things we emit? Truly, if you struggle with vocabulary like this the LSAT will be a struggle.

This part is the important part: "But these facts should not make us forget how crucial near-term limits on the emissions of "greenhouse gases" are to motivate these changes. When the issue was the limitation of ozone-reducing substances, it was short-term emissions limits that quickly brought the needed technologies to the marketplace."

Translated, "We need to remember that short term limits on how much carbon dioxide/methane we put into the atmosphere are important to motivate longer term changes. ANALOGY ALERT!!! When there was a need to stop putting substances that reduce ozone into the atmosphere, that was achieved by limiting short term emissions, which inspired technologies that enabled the long term change."

So the ecologist is saying that just as we did with the ozone problem, we need to do with the greenhouse gas problem. Which is why the answer is C.

CFC152436

Definitely agree with what David said above. That withstanding, reading comprehension is the key for LR (and obviously RC) so I understand why you asked the question. Here's my take on the argument:

The first sentence is context. Some people (not the author) believe the solution to global warming and the impact of fossil fuels revolves around long term changes.

The "but" indicates the start of the author's argument. He doesn't really say anything specific about the long term changes mentioned previously. Instead, he says that we need to remember how important short term (he uses the phrase "near-term") changes are to combating global warming and fossil fuels. This statement acts as the author's conclusion.

Why are short term changes so important? What support does he use for his conclusion? The author gives us an example of a different environmental issue that was solved by the use of short-term solutions. This example acts as an analogy - if short term solutions worked for a previous environmental issue, they should work again for the current environmental issue.

blakkdoll

Oh ok, I get it now. Thanks