LSAT 13 - Section 4 - Question 11

This is a very standard NA question stem. If the argument depends on an assumption, the assumption is necessary.

So the plastic rings on a six-pack ensnare and suffocate animals. Yeah, I’ve definitely heard this and always try to cut these up before discarding. I don’t know if it actually helps, but can’t hurt. Anyway, what about it? Oh okay, new rings that will disintegrate after three days of sunlight. A few things about this sentence. First, is this going to work? I mean, it seems like these might get this much light just in shipping and handling before their job is done. This does not matter though. Despite any potential downside, this statement tells us that ALL beverage companies will soon be using these rings. That seems like a pretty big shift. Good. And once we complete the switch to the new rings, the threat plastic rings pose to wildlife will be eliminated. So this is the conclusion.

I can see a few possible problems here, but we don’t want to go hunting for anything specific. For NA questions, it is best to go into the answer choices with an open mind. Let them speak to you and consider the issues they suggest.

Answer Choice (A) Does this have to be true for the argument to work? No. What if some of them will disintegrate in only two days? Well that might be a problem as far as these rings efficacy as packaging, but our conclusion is only about eliminating threat to wildlife. If three days is good, two seems like it would be even better. So when we negate this, it seems to only make things better for our wildlife friends.

Answer Choice (B) We don’t care about this at all. What matters is that these companies are making the switch. End of story. This can bankrupt them for all we care.

Correct Answer Choice (C) So if this isn’t true, has the threat been eliminated? I would have to say it has not. Three days seems like fast disintegration time, but now that this answer directs my attention to it, the conclusion is quite strong. Our argument is claiming to eliminate the threat. Elimination is as absolute as it gets. But these things have up to three days to be out there before they fall apart. And that’s enough time to harm some wildlife. So now it seems the threat is not eliminated without this answer choice. The argument does, indeed, require this to be true. So this is our answer.

Answer Choice (D) Interesting suggestion, but this is not necessary. If we negate this, we’re only expanding the harms being caused by the old rings. But the conclusion is limited to eliminating the threat of suffocation—not all possible threats—so even if there are other threats, they are not relevant to our argument.

Answer Choice (E) Well I certainly hope not. Regardless, does this have to be true? No. We care about the threat of suffocation which remains a threat even if some animals are able to escape the rings. A threat need not be universally fatal to qualify as a threat. A 99% mortality rate would still be quite threatening.

Answers D and E may be tempting because they address the old rings. There is no reason to believe that the old rings will immediately disappear from the environment. They may continue posing a threat even after their use is discontinued in new packaging. So there is an additional necessary condition for this argument which concerns eliminating the risk posed by the old rings, but this answer does not express that assumption correctly. This alternative necessary assumption is a likely pre-phrase, and the possible existence of multiple necessary assumptions is why this strategy is not recommended for the question type. If you D or E based on a pre-phrase, ask yourself: Did you really scrutinize answer choice C to consider what it was suggesting? Or did you dismiss it because it didn’t match your expectation?