LSAT 118 – Section 1 – Question 02

LSAT 118 - Section 1 - Question 02

December 2004

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:03

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT118 S1 Q02
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Analogy +An
A
1%
156
B
1%
154
C
91%
165
D
2%
159
E
5%
157
130
140
150
 +Easier 148.411 +SubsectionMedium

Commentator: Many people argue that the release of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere is harming humans by damaging the ozone layer, thus allowing increased amounts of ultraviolet radiation to reach Earth. But 300,000 years ago a supernova greatly damaged the ozone layer, with no significant effect on our earliest ancestors. Because the supernova’s disruption was much greater than the estimated effect of chlorofluorocarbons today, there is no reason to think that these chemicals in the atmosphere harm humans in this way.

Summarize Argument
The commentator concludes that there is no reason to think that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere are harming humans by damaging the ozone layer and allowing excess ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach Earth. As support, the commentator cites a supernova 300,000 years ago that damaged the ozone layer much more than CFCs are estimated to be damaging the ozone layer today. Since our earliest ancestors were not impacted by this damage 300,000 years ago, the commentator says that humans today won’t be harmed by the damage caused by CFCs.

Notable Assumptions
The commentator assumes that humans are similar enough to “our earliest ancestors” to conclude that something that didn’t damage our ancestors won’t damage us. The commentator also assumes that there have not been changes in the past 300,000 years that may augment the harm of a damaged ozone layer.

A
Extraterrestrial influences on the ozone layer tend to occur less often than terrestrial ones.
We don’t care about other influences on the ozone layer; the argument is specifically focused on whether or not damage to the ozone layer caused by CFCs will be harmful for humans. Furthermore, the quantity of these extraterrestrial influences definitely isn’t relevant.
B
Natural events, such as the eruption of volcanoes, continue to damage the ozone layer today.
Similar to (A), for this argument, we only care about the impact that CFCs have on the ozone layer; other influences on the ozone layer are irrelevant to the commentator’s argument.
C
Our earliest ancestors possessed genetic characteristics making them more resistant than we are to the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation.
(C) widens the gap between the premises and conclusion. It’s great that our earliest ancestors weren’t harmed by the damage to the ozone layer, but if they were more resistant than we are to UV radiation, then we cannot use their experience as a basis for this claim about humans.
D
The ozone layer regenerates at a slow rate, barring counteractive processes.
The argument is about damage to the ozone layer, not repairing the ozone layer, so this is outside of the scope of the argument. We don’t know if any counteractive processes are happening.
E
Scientists have discovered that genetic changes occurred in our ancestors during the period in which the supernova affected Earth.
This is too vague––without any indication of what kind of genetic changes occurred, this is not enough information to weaken the argument. It could be the case that all of these genetic changes are completely independent from reactions to UV radiation.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 118 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply