Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 29 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
PT15.S3.Q23 - Asbestos is a silent killer (Still in need of second opinion!)
Ashley2018-1
Alum Member
Could a kind 7sager double-check my logic? After reading the argument, I thought it was well-supported. If it is in fact a poor argument, could someone point out why?
And does D weaken the argument because it provides a potential reason why leaving the asbestos alone in the buildings (not removing all of it) can be problematic? If it is true that building renovations of demolitions will 100% of the time cause the asbestos to be disturbed (and thereby cause a health risk) then if either of these things were to happen, then the government might as well remove it since not doing so only delays the inevitable
One lingering question I have: does deliberately removing the asbestos count as a renovation? And does E strengthen the argument since it provides a reason why the gov't should not remove the asbestos (the removed asbestos can still pose a health risk if it is disturbed)
Context: Asbestos... poses health risk only if it is disturbed and fibers released into environment
(Causal: disturbed asbestos causes health risk) Does this mean leaving it undisturbed renders the building asbestos harmless?
Premise: Removing asbestos from buildings disturbs it
Conclusion: Government shouldn't require removal of asbestos insulation.
Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"
Comments
When I was reading it, I noticed that there was a gap in the logic and asked myself: "who cares if it is disturbed?" It could be disturbed but we could make sure that NO ONE was near it when it was disturbed. So, I immediately looked for an AC that eliminated that flaw. In that sense, B almost helps patch that flaw but clearly falls short. The workers could easily wear safety gear and the government could tear down the buildings. However, AC E is correct because anyone could still be affected by disturbed asbestos in landfills, therefore, supporting the notion that asbestos will negatively affect someone if the government were to require removal of these types of buildings.
What's wrong with D though?
Eh...I cared if it's disturbed lol. If it's disturbed, doesn't that cause a health risk? and should I understand the first statement as a conditional or causal relationship?
Because it could be disturbed but no one is near it that negates the conclusion that the government should not tear down the buildings. I wouldn't make this into a conditional (at least not in a timed PT) but this is how I ~think~ it would look:
Remove asbestos --> disturbance --> health risk
So, this is more of a causal relationship. Regardless, we are looking to patch up the weaknesses with this argument, which means we will attack the relationships found in the above causal relationship to find out what we need to repair. If there seems to be evidence that would weaken the causal relationship between these above items, then we need to fix it. In this case, we would question whether a disturbance REALLY would be a health risk. With D, we could, for example, demolish the building from a distance with TNT and no one would necessarily be exposed.
Eh...aren't you questioning the premise? I don't think we are supposed to do that. The stimulus says if it's disturbed, it will be a health risk...
I just don't understand what effect D has on the argument.
AC D is incorrect because it doesn't prove that it will actually case health risks to anyone. According to the argument, if there is a health risk, then the government shouldn't do it. If the weakness with the argument is that there might not be any health risk, then showing that there is a disturbance won't fix the issue. AC E perfect demonstrates that there will be an inevitable health risk, which polished up the argument.
But you are questioning the premises. The argument says if the asbestos is disturbed it will pose a health risk and if D were true, then yeah, the asbestos will inevitably be disturbed during renovation or demolition of buildings...and cause a health risk.
There are two parts to an argument: (1) premise and (2) conclusion. If there is a weakness within our premise, then the conclusion remains unjustified. Therefore, it is ok to attack the premise -- or, strengthen, in this case.
I don't think there is a weakness in the premise. It says disturbed asbestos will cause a health risk so I'll take the author's word for it. the problem is why the premises don't lead to the conclusion, why the fact that removing asbestos causes a health risk doesn't lead to the conclusion that the gov't shouldn't require all of it to be removed. D apparently weakens the argument but I just don't understand why
If the asbestos is disturbed it CAN cause health risks. It is simply necessary that it is disturbed. Therefore, simply because the destruction of buildings causes it to be disturbed doesn't mean it leads to health risks. I honestly don't think AC D weakens it, it is more neutral. MAYBE it would mean that the government would eventually have to disturb it regardless of the health risks but that seems like a stretch.
I cross-checked like three different sources and all say it weakens; my question is how. We're going in circles; the premise says it will cause a health risk if disturbed. If I accept your argument that the premises are problematic because there might not be a health risk, then answer choice E is in jeopardy as well since it might not cause a health risk even if it is true removed asbestos might be disturbed. I want to know why D attacks the underlying logic of the argument.
I would say it is better to question these with hypotheticals like I had mentioned before and look for an AC that resolves the issue. I can't really help you beyond that. In regard to AC D weakening, if the asbestos will be disturbed no matter what, then why would the city not go ahead and destroy the buildings themselves?
I...don't know. since it only happens during renovations or demolition, am i supposed to assume either one or both of these two things will happen?
Yes, if you were to choose that AC, you are accepting that asbestos will be disturbed by those two things no matter what.
but if neither of those two things happen then does it no longer weaken or does it not work this way
If anyone reads this far down the feed, is this argument by itself a decent argument? let's say we didn't add anything to it
Are you asking if the answer choice read "asbestos will not be disturbed by building renovation or building demolition?" In that case, that would probably contradict the secondary premise. If anything, I would say it would still weaken the argument.
No, as it renovations and demolitions didn't happen.
If those two things didn't occur at all, then there would be no reason for the government's requirements to demolish buildings with asbestos -- they just wouldn't happen. I think that would just make the AC completely irrelevant to the argument. We need demolitions to occur for there to be an argument.
IF someone could check my thinking above, it would be greatly appreciated!
Disturbed asbestos bad
removal disturbs asbestos
So don't require removal.
Strengthen
A - Asbestos less risky than smoking drugs, booze, diet, being lazy, nuclear bombs, sharks with lasers, telling your wife to calm down, gas station sushi... no effect.
B - Asbestos can pose a threat if you remove it without protective gear. Obvious, and sure this strengthens under the assumption that if forced to remove, you'll do it without gear. Also there's the a can vs will thing going on too. But we could still say it strengthens... but does it strengthen the most? Contender for now.
C - Some kinds of asbestos are worse than others. So to strengthen our argument, we would say the worse ones are the ones you'd be forcing people to remove? More of a stretch than B. Gone.
D - All asbestos is eventually disturbed. So if its going to be disturbed anyway, why shouldn't we remove it now? I'd think you'd want to get rid of an inevitable health risk. You could likely force this to strengthen, but it'd take way too much to allow this to be the correct AC.
E - Removed asbestos can disturbed again. So potentially causing another health risk form the asbestos that was already disturbed once. This strengthens as if it wasn't going to be a threat until we disturbed it, and then by removing it we are leaving it open to being disturbed again later on, causing another threat, it'd seem to make more sense to just leave it where it was in the first place. Better than B in that it compounds any risk of removal with a renewed risk of a second disturbance once disposed of. Removal becomes more risky, supporting the argument as a whole.
It's not a bad argument... in fact it's basically what we do in real life. Regardless the task is to strengthen it.
Yes, D suggests that there is no point in avoiding removal as disturbance is inevitable.
Doesn't matter. We don't have the info, nor are we required by the question, to make that distinction.
God bless, man
🙏