Q18 - The use of space-based

[martintp]

Can someone tell me why b is wrong?

[maryadkins]

We are told that using satellites to observe environmental conditions on earth has been great for the environment in that we can detect problems earlier. But the problem is that because of this, environmentalists can be blind to the downside of space crafts: they may actually be endangering the ozone layer so much that the negatives outweigh the positives.

(A) describes the phenomenon exhibited by the environmentalists. Correct.
(B) is the opposite of what the reasoning suggests. It's not suggesting that the negatives are outweighed by the positives, but that the positives could be outweighed by the negatives, which environmentalists don't see. (B) also leaves out the environmentalists.
(C) presents a degree issue. We're not talking about "technology" in general or what happens "usually." It also leaves out the environmentalists.
(D) leaves out the environmentalists again.
(E) Ditto! Also, we don't know that the ozone issue was unforeseen. We're just told the environmentalists ignore it.

[timmydoeslsat]

I used process of elimination to get to A.

I did not like the fact that it used the word "tend" as that part is not conforming to the stimulus. Is this just one of those things that we have to deal with in an answer choice?

[LSAT-Chang]

Is "fail to consider" = "ignore"???

The dictionary definition of "ignore" is refusing to notice or disregarding something. But to me, "fail to consider" sounds more like "ignorance" and not "ignore"..

Like the way answer choice (A) sounds to me is that these people tend to "ignore" these issues on purpose -- like a similar context would be when you "ignore" someone's calls. But "fail to consider" in the stimulus sounds like these environmentalists are not aware that these spacecrafts may damage the ozone layer -- I mean it wouldn't make sense that these people would ignore these negative consequences that it may have on purpose, right? What am I missing here?

And since this question is #18, as Matt always suggests, I shouldn't be too lenient with word choices -- so I definitely have a problem with this unless I have the wrong definition...

[maryadkins]

I did not like the fact that it used the word "tend" as that part is not conforming to the stimulus. Is this just one of those things that we have to deal with in an answer choice?

You can get to it through process of elimination, and sometimes that's all you got, right? (Although the good news in those situations, of course, is that that's all you need.) But in this case, "tend" is supported by the part of the stimulus that says, "It is no wonder that..."

If it's no wonder that something happens, that means it is at least not uncommon. And "tends" means what? That something isn't uncommon.

Is "fail to consider" = "ignore"???

"Fails to consider" means they ignore it, but it doesn't have to be on purpose. I wouldn't over-think possible motivations; whenever you see this phrase, it means whoever is "failing to consider" is--either willingly, or maybe because he or she is just plain dumb, or because of some completely unrelated reason we'll never know--overlooking something. Think of it as "is not taking into account."

[LSAT-Chang]

"Fails to consider" means they ignore it, but it doesn't have to be on purpose. I wouldn't over-think possible motivations; whenever you see this phrase, it means whoever is "failing to consider" is--either willingly, or maybe because he or she is just plain dumb, or because of some completely unrelated reason we'll never know--overlooking something. Think of it as "is not taking into account."

Thanks for the clarification!! I like the definition "is not taking into account"

[mcrittell]

I now understand why A is correct, but I'm still shaky on why B is incorrect. Insights? Aren't the negative consequences outweighed if "it's no wonder that environs fail to consider X"? How is it the opposite way, that the positive consequences are outweighed by the negative ones?

[zee.brad]

I now understand why A is correct, but I'm still shaky on why B is incorrect. Insights? Aren't the negative consequences outweighed if "it's no wonder that environs fail to consider X"? How is it the opposite way, that the positive consequences are outweighed by the negative ones?

There is no way you can get such "overweighted" information from the original argument, truth is there is no comparison at all, the original argument is simply saying that the scientists failed to consider the negative consequences and that's it.

I eliminated ans A b/c of "ignore" without hesitation, then all the way down to ans E and found out there was no right ans choice! Then forced to choose A since the others were way too wrong... now I am glad to know from now on, I can take "ignore = fail to consider".

[tzyc]

I see how (A) is correct but just wondering...

we're not talking about "technology" in general or what happens "usually"

I may be wrong or misunderstand something, but I thought principle is general rule, isn't it?
So I thought it's OK for being general...
About (C) and (D)...
what do you mean "leave out environmentalist"? (A) also does not mention environmentalist...isn't it??

Thank you

[maryadkins]

"Principle" means general, yes, but it still has to be about what the argument is saying. You have to strike a balance between general and specific to find the answer choice that best matches the argument. (C) is about what technology is doing, not what the people involved (the environmentalists) are doing. (A) is okay because "people" refers to the environmentalists.

[aznriceboi17]

What threw me off on this question was the fact that in using space-based satellites as part of their conservation efforts, they are damaging the ozone layer which would hamper those very efforts.

In A, the wording 'actions that support their activities' didn't seem to apply to this situation since the use of satellites damages the ozone layer and potentially represents a net setback to the conservation efforts after factoring in whatever gain they get.

Did this bother anyone else? Is it wrong to see the ozone damage as being opposed to the conservation efforts?

[maryadkins]

But what about the part of the question that tells us the benefits of satellites? That makes the use of satellites supportive of conservation efforts.

[deedubbew]

You say D is wrong because it leaves out the environmentalists. But why is it necessary to address them specifically in the answer choice. A does not address environmentalists specifically; it addresses "people." My understanding is that principles are more general than the stimulus. Is D not wrong because the stimulus does not mention any problem that environmentalists are trying to solve? Therefore, we also don't know if they are making the "problem" worse or not.

We are told that using satellites to observe environmental conditions on earth has been great for the environment in that we can detect problems earlier. But the problem is that because of this, environmentalists can be blind to the downside of space crafts: they may actually be endangering the ozone layer so much that the negatives outweigh the positives.

(A) describes the phenomenon exhibited by the environmentalists. Correct.
(B) is the opposite of what the reasoning suggests. It's not suggesting that the negatives are outweighed by the positives, but that the positives could be outweighed by the negatives, which environmentalists don't see. (B) also leaves out the environmentalists.
(C) presents a degree issue. We're not talking about "technology" in general or what happens "usually." It also leaves out the environmentalists.
(D) leaves out the environmentalists again.
(E) Ditto! Also, we don't know that the ozone issue was unforeseen. We're just told the environmentalists ignore it.

[bernard.agrest]

So, this is a Principle (Identify) question.

Stimulus: It says that using satellites to study environmental conditions on earth i an important development in conservationist history. Env. problems can now be observed, and we can take steps to prevent them before they reach the crisis stage. For this reason its not a surprise that environmentalists aren't considering the damage to the ozone layer (and how serious it could be) that spacecraft can do. In fact the danger is so serious, it could warrant a discontinuing of spaceflight.

A) This is it. It says that People ignore the negative consequences of their actions, in support of their own activities. That is exactly what the conservationists are doing.

B)Tricky, BUT, it doesn't say anywhere that the negatives associated with space flight will be outweighed by its positives. In fact, if you read very carefully, it says that the dangers are so great, that we might have to discontinue space flight.. and then, that would most certainly overwhelm the positive consequences.

C) Usually, we only know of one instance!

D) 1) We don't know that the conservationists are well intentioned. 2) We don't know that we're solving a problem (can we solve a problem, before its even occurred). 3) We don't know that attempting to solve the problem, will make the problem worse. There are way too many assumptions on here, to justify this answer choice.

E) Unforeseen? The stimulus directly tells us about the consequences that can arise.

[Mab6q]

B is tricky, but ultimately wrong, mainly for the reasons expressed above. However, I've noticed that when the LSAT provides us with a tricky incorrect answer, if we dig deeper, we can come up with a few reasons why it's incorrect. For B, it says "a negative consequence", whereas the stimulus gives us two negative consequences. That subtle difference provides another reason why B is not the principle.

[daijob]

I eliminated A because of the word "tend to."
Did the stimulus say people "tend to" do that?
I know this is not a must be true question, but was just wondering how much flexibility we should have on words.

Thank you,

[maryadkins]

Did you check the conversation above? We actually addressed that earlier in the thread. Reposting it here:

You can get to it through process of elimination, and sometimes that's all you got, right? (Although the good news in those situations, of course, is that that's all you need.) But in this case, "tend" is supported by the part of the stimulus that says, "It is no wonder that..."

If it's no wonder that something happens, that means it is at least not uncommon. And "tends" means what? That something isn't uncommon.

[uhdang]

Anyone could elaborate on D please?

D) 1) We don't know that the conservationists are well intentioned. 2) We don't know that we're solving a problem (can we solve a problem, before its even occurred). 3) We don't know that attempting to solve the problem, will make the problem worse. There are way too many assumptions on here, to justify this answer choice.

[quote="bernard.agrest"]

I do agree with 2) and 3) for this reasoning, but regarding 1), I think well-intended attempts refer to observation to prevent environmental problem beforehand.

While the clearest point here is 2), for observing to tackle environmental problems before it becomes severe isn't problem-solving, but still a bit iffy about 3). It sounds like D)'s "sometimes make them worse" implies that it has already happened, while the stimulus just claims it "may" and "could" result in something deleterious.

I welcome any take on my reasoning.

[jm.kahn]

What threw me off on this question was the fact that in using space-based satellites as part of their conservation efforts, they are damaging the ozone layer which would hamper those very efforts.

In A, the wording 'actions that support their activities' didn't seem to apply to this situation since the use of satellites damages the ozone layer and potentially represents a net setback to the conservation efforts after factoring in whatever gain they get.

Did this bother anyone else? Is it wrong to see the ozone damage as being opposed to the conservation efforts?

This is exactly what bothered me about A due to which I eliminated it. The principle can't claim that Environmentalists activities are not supported because ozone damage is counter to what they want.

B is very tricky. the argument does seem to suggest that at the present/current time, positives outweigh negatives like B says. Choice B like choice A is only about the current time. So the claim that negatives outweigh positives because the argument suggests that eventually the spaceflight may be discontinued, is just as inapplicable to choice B as the suggestion that eventual ozone damage may not support environmentalists activities is to choice A.

Any solid reason for why B is wrong?