Environmentalist: The excessive atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide, which threatens the welfare of everyone in the world, can be stopped only by reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Any country imposing the strict emission standards on the industrial burning of such fuels that this reduction requires, however, would thereby reduce its gross national product. No nation will be willing to bear singlehandedly the costs of an action that will benefit everyone. It is obvious, then, that the catastrophic consequences of excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide are unavoidable unless _______.
Summary
According to the environmentalist, excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide threatens everyone’s welfare, and can only be stopped by reducing fossil fuel use. However, any country that participated in this reduction would also reduce its GNP. Also, no country would willingly take on the entire cost of an action that helps everyone. Thus, the threat of excess atmospheric carbon can only be avoided if... what?
In Lawgic:
P1: stop carbon excess → reduce fossil fuels
P2: reduce fossil fuels → reduce GNP
P3: country → /willing to bear entire cost
C: stop carbon excess → ?
Strongly Supported Conclusions
From the stimulus, we can conclude that avoiding the threat of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide can only be avoided if multiple countries work together to share the burden of reducing fossil fuel use.
A
all nations become less concerned with pollution than with the economic burdens of preventing it
This is anti-supported. The whole problem for the environmentalist is that each individual country is too concerned with economics, and not concerned enough with pollution. Shifting the balance further towards economics definitely wouldn’t avoid the carbon crisis.
B
multinational corporations agree to voluntary strict emission standards
This is not supported. The environmentalist doesn’t indicate the role of multinational corporations at all, and talks about strict government regulation rather than voluntary emission standards.
C
international agreements produce industrial emission standards
This is strongly supported. The environmentalist’s argument is that countries aren’t willing to work alone to impose industrial emission standards. International agreements would share the economic burden, thus allowing a solution through participation.
D
distrust among nations is eliminated
This is not supported. The environmentalist doesn’t suggest anything about distrust among nations. It may be tempting to assume that distrust is the obstacle, but we just don’t have enough information about nations’ intentions and their leaders’ beliefs.
E
a world government is established
This is not supported. The environmentalist is leading to the conclusion that some kind of international participation is necessary, but world government is an extreme way to do so, and it’s not an option suggested in the stimulus. This just goes too far.
A
A property of a technology may constitute an advantage in one set of circumstances and a disadvantage in others.
B
What at first appears to be an advantage of a technology may create more problems than it solves.
C
It is more important to be able to preserve information than it is for information to be easily accessible.
D
Innovations in document storage technologies sometimes decrease, but never eliminate, the risk of destroying documents.
E
Advances in technology can lead to increases in both convenience and environmental soundness.
(A) is a difficult answer choice to parse. What's "not significantly more"? Certainly less --> not significantly more. Same --> not significantly more. Slightly more --> not significantly more.
It's only the last group "slightly more" that gives us some trouble. We would need to presume that "slightly more" is not already more 5%, which I think is reasonable. Of course, the LSAT thinks that's reasonable too.
A
Some people have surmised that a hardware store will be opening in the shopping plaza.
B
A hardware store will not be opening in the shopping plaza.
C
If somebody were going to open a hardware store in the shopping plaza, that person would already have started publicizing it.
D
It would be unwise to open a hardware store in the shopping plaza.
E
There has been no publicity concerning the opening of a hardware store in the shopping plaza.
Ethicist: Although science is frequently said to be morally neutral, it has a traditional value system of its own. For example, scientists sometimes foresee that a line of theoretical research they are pursuing will yield applications that could seriously harm people, animals, or the environment. Yet, according to science’s traditional value system, such consequences do not have to be considered in deciding whether to pursue that research. Ordinary morality, in contrast, requires that we take the foreseeable consequences of our actions into account whenever we are deciding what to do.
Summary
Science has a traditional value system of its own. For example, scientists sometimes foresee research yielding harmful consequences. However, according to scientist’s traditional value system, these consequences do not have to be considered when deciding what to research. In contrast, ordinary morality would require taking foreseeable consequences into account when deciding what to do.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Sometimes scientists may follow their traditional value system and violate ordinary morality at the same time.
A
Scientists should not be held responsible for the consequences of their research.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest what scientists should or should not be held accountable for. The stimulus is limited to the contrast between two different value systems.
B
According to the dictates of ordinary morality, scientists doing research that ultimately turns out to yield harmful applications are acting immorally.
This answer is unsupported. Ordinary morality requires taking foreseeable consequences into account. If the harm that results in this answer choice is not foreseeable, then scientists cannot be said to be violating ordinary morality.
C
Science is morally neutral because it assigns no value to the consequences of theoretical research.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether science is in fact morally neutral. We only know that science is frequently said to be morally neutral.
D
It is possible for scientists to both adhere to the traditional values of their field and violate a principle of ordinary morality.
This answer is strongly supported. Scientists’ traditional value system does not require taking into account foreseeable consequences, while ordinary morality does.
E
The uses and effects of scientifically acquired knowledge can never be adequately foreseen.
This answer is unsupported. To say that these can “never” be adequately foreseen is too strong. It’s possible that these effects can be adequately foreseen, it’s just that the traditional value system for science does not require scientists to take these effects into account.