LSAT 129 – Section 1 – Question 13

LSAT 129 - Section 1 - Question 13

June 2009

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:53

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
PT129 S1 Q13
+LR
+Exp
Strengthen +Streng
Analogy +An
A
2%
155
B
13%
160
C
2%
154
D
66%
165
E
18%
160
140
154
168
 +Harder 146.023 +SubsectionMedium

Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitively expensive to reduce levels of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels enough to halt global warming. This claim is probably false. Several years ago, the chemical industry said that finding an economical alternative to the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) destroying the ozone layer would be impossible. Yet once the industry was forced, by international agreements, to find substitutes for CFCs, it managed to phase them out completely well before the mandated deadline, in many cases at a profit.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that it probably wouldn’t be prohibitively expensive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels enough to halt global warming. This is because the chemical industry had claimed something similar about CFCs, only to eventually replace them with substitutes at a profit.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that fossil fuel industries would be able replace fossil fuels with substitutes in the same way the chemical industry replaced CFCs with substitutes. And in order for the shift from carbon dioxide-producing fossil fuels not to be “prohibitively expensive,” the author also assumes that the fossil fuel industry is financially similar to the chemical industry in all relevant aspects.

A
In the time since the chemical industry phased out CFCs, the destruction of the ozone layer by CFCs has virtually halted, but the levels of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels have continued to increase.
We already know there’ve been no equivalent changes in the fossil fuel industry. We’re trying to strengthen similarities between the fossil fuel industry and the chemical industry.
B
In some countries, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels has already been reduced without prohibitive expense, but at some cost in convenience to the users of such fuels.
We care about reducing carbon dioxide emissions to levels low enough to halt global warming. We have no idea how much these emissions have been reduced.
C
The use of CFCs never contributed as greatly to the destruction of the ozone layer as the carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels currently contributes to global warming.
We don’t care which is worse for the environment. This just tells us the fossil fuel industry will have to make a huge effort to change.
D
There are ways of reducing carbon dioxide emissions that could halt global warming without hurting profits of fossil-fuel producers significantly more than phasing out CFCs hurt those of the chemical industry.
This tells us that fossil-fuel producers can do what the chemical industry did. Thus, it probably wouldn’t be prohibitively expensive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to levels low enough to halt global warming.
E
If international agreements forced fossil-fuel producers to find ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to halt global warming, the fossil-fuel producers could find substitutes for fossil fuels.
We’re not talking about finding alternatives to fossil fuels. We’re talking about reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 129 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply