LSAT 144 – Section 3 – Question 11

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:45

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
PT144 S3 Q11
+LR
+Exp
Evaluate +Eval
Except +Exc
Net Effect +NetEff
A
10%
163
B
70%
163
C
16%
158
D
2%
156
E
2%
154
132
149
166
+Medium 145.106 +SubsectionEasier

Activist: Accidents at the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear plants have shown the dangers of nuclear power. It was earlier argued that nuclear power was necessary because fossil fuels will eventually run out. Recently, however, a technology has been developed for deriving from sewage sludge an oil that can be used to generate power. This new technology, therefore, together with the possibility of using alternative sources of energy like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power, raises the hope that we can dispense altogether with nuclear power and that we can meet our energy needs in a way that better protects the environment from harm than we do at present.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a new technology that derives an oil from sewage sludge makes it possible that we can turn away from nuclear power and move towards environment-friendly energy. His support is that this sewage-sludge oil can be used to generate power

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the oil derived from sewage sludge, along with the myriad alternatives listed, would in fact be able to replace nuclear power. He also assumes that doing so would in fact result in less environmental damage than nuclear power does, which means he believes the process of extracting and storing oil from sewage sludge isn’t as environmentally taxing as nuclear power. Finally, the author assumes that relying on sewage sludge isn’t as much of a danger as nuclear power.

A
whether the current methods of disposing of sewage sludge by dumping do environmental damage
If the current method of disposing of sewage sludge is environmentally harmful, then a process relying on sewage sludge would be environmentally harmful. This would weaken the author’s argument that sewage-sludge oil will be environmentally beneficial versus nuclear power.
B
whether the processes that are used to turn sewage into clean water and sewage sludge have been improved in recent decades
Irrelevant. We don’t care if sewage sludge and water are being properly separated. We’re interested in whether an oil extracted from sewage sludge can in fact help replace nuclear power.
C
whether the cost of producing and using oil from sewage sludge would be economically sustainable
If producing and using an oil from sewage sludge isn’t economically sustainable, then that oil certainly won’t replace nuclear power. If it is economically sustainable, then the author’s argument in favor of that oil is strengthened.
D
whether the burning of oil from sewage sludge would, in contrast to nuclear power production, produce gases that would have a harmful warming effect on climate worldwide
If burning that oil did produce harmful gases—an effect that nuclear power production doesn’t have—then the author’s claim that the sewage-sludge oil offers an environmentally-friendly alternative to nuclear power is seriously undermined.
E
whether waste products that would be produced in deriving oil from sewage sludge and burning it would be as dangerous as those produced by the mining and use of nuclear fuel
If such products were produced, then sewage-sludge oil would seem to have one of the same problems the author cites about nuclear power: danger to humans.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

Leave a Reply