PT78.S4.Q25 - by 1970 it was well established

FriendlyPhrogFriendlyPhrog Alum Member
edited September 2017 in Reading Comprehension 30 karma

Hey, everyone.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on why the passage supports D more strongly than E. I ended up going with D on the test, but didn't feel like I had an articulable justification for why it was a better choice.

The one thing I can think of is that the existence of a hole in the ozone somewhere other than above Antarctica (and perhaps one even larger than the one over Antarctica) is technically compatible with everything in the passage. Since the passage doesn't rule this out, the passage shouldn't be read as supporting any claims about the relative quantity upward flow of CFCs into the stratosphere above Antarctica.

An issue that made me hesitant about D: The passage indicates that the ozone layer would continue to deteriorate for years or decades even if CFC emission were eliminated immediately and completely. So any lowering of the incidence of skin cancer from such a policy would be very delayed. Maybe this consideration is sort of a trap - it doesn't make the answer choice any less supported by the passage, but does make it somehow intuitively less appealing.

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-4-passage-4-passage/
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-4-passage-4-questions/

Comments

  • meletzyoshermeletzyosher Member
    66 karma

    A little synopsis of my experience with "either/or" and "neither/nor". The former means that at least one is true and the latter means both are not true. Furthermore, degree matters too. What I mean is if I say "Little or nothing at all" (as in choice A of this question), I cannot logically include in "little" the little amount that occurs when a lot occurs (like a fractal). Sounds confusing but an analogy would be money. If I have a million bucks it would be incorrect to say I have a little money even though it is true. I can withdraw a dollar and now have a little money. This is my reasoning for killing choice A because we have no way of knowing how much relative natural destruction occurs in the absence of chlorine. (Lines 11-14).
    Thoughts?

Sign In or Register to comment.