User avatar
 
tommywallach
Thanks Received: 427
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: August 11th, 2009
 
This post thanked 4 times.
 
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by tommywallach Fri Dec 31, 1999 8:00 pm

Hey Mehreena,

Let's do it!

Passage: I.P. --> up phytos --> down CO2 and less greenhouse
Side effects haven't been studied
We shouldn't I.P. right now

The takeaway is that you shouldn't do something that you know has good consequences if you don't know what it's bad consequences might be. (We can see that before we look at the answers.)

(A) The passage never said something should be done, only not done.

(B) CORRECT. This is saying we shouldn't do something if we don't know what the bad effects might be.

(C) We don't know if this would be the case (consequences worse than original problem) because we don't know what the consequences are yet!

(D) This is tricky, but the passage doesn't say we shouldn't alter a resource (the resource here being an ocean), only that we shouldn't do it if we don't know what the consequences might be.

(E) This is the trickiest answer. But the passage doesn't say the solution might exacerbate the original problem, only that it might cause other problems.


#officialexplanation

Hope that helps!

-t
Tommy Wallach
Manhattan LSAT Instructor
twallach@manhattanprep.com
Image
User avatar
 
geverett
Thanks Received: 73
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 207
Joined: January 29th, 2011
 
 
 

Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by geverett Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:19 pm

B vs E . . . Go!
User avatar
 
gilad.bendheim
Thanks Received: 20
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 31
Joined: August 20th, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by gilad.bendheim Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:20 pm

(E) is tricky, but should be among the first to be eliminated, for two reasons. (1) We have no information about a problem being exacerbated anywhere in the stimulas. But more importantly (2) the answer says 'we shouldn't do something to correct a problem that would make the problem itself worse.' In the stimulas, the problem is the greenhouse affect. But the problem being dealt with in answer choice is DIFFERENT -- it is some harm coming to the ocean. What this harm may be we do not know, but there is no reason to think that it has anything to do with greenhouse gasses. Maybe the harm is that tuna fish would taste worse...

Love your posts by the way - always super helpful.
Thanks
User avatar
 
maryadkins
Thanks Received: 578
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: March 23rd, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Phytoplankton in the ocean

by maryadkins Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:45 am

Great response! Let me know if you still need clarification!
 
syousif3
Thanks Received: 0
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 36
Joined: July 19th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by syousif3 Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:35 pm

Hello is A wrong because it reversed the logic?
 
boy5237
Thanks Received: 1
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 29
Joined: October 18th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by boy5237 Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:51 pm

I thought B was not an attractive choice because of the word "alter."
there is no indication in argument that the green house effect could alter the source, which is the ocean.

Help???
 
jimmy902o
Thanks Received: 3
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 90
Joined: August 06th, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by jimmy902o Fri Nov 09, 2012 12:44 am

How is B a better choice than A? B says the strategy would be "impermissible (forever?)" which carries much stronger weight than "should not be implemented immediately"
 
timmydoeslsat
Thanks Received: 832
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: June 20th, 2011
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by timmydoeslsat Fri Nov 09, 2012 12:57 pm

There is no argument from me that we could have worded B to be a better answer choice. However, B is the only answer choice that is close.

We know that the consequences of this iron campaign to the oceans are unknown. This is the reason why the author tells us to not undertake this campaign right now.

A) Know consequences ---> Do it

This is logically backwards of what we want. We want a situation that tells us what to do when we ~Know consequences.
 
al2568
Thanks Received: 1
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 14
Joined: September 15th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by al2568 Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:03 pm

Just for fun....

If this were a strengthen question, wouldn't E and B both work?
User avatar
 
tommywallach
Thanks Received: 427
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: August 11th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by tommywallach Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:57 pm

Hey Al,

Believe it or not, i would still say no, basically for the reasons already cited. Knowing that we shouldn't do something that may exacerbate a problem isn't relevant here, because the iron filing strategy would decidedly NOT exacerbate the issue of the greenhouse effect (we know that it would HELP that issue). So "exacerbation" is an irrelevant issue.

Make sense?

-t
Tommy Wallach
Manhattan LSAT Instructor
twallach@manhattanprep.com
Image
 
mehreena379
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 3
Joined: July 08th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by mehreena379 Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:14 pm

Can someone please work through the stimulus and questions stem for this one? I chose A are the answer because I thought 'impermissible' was too strong when the question stem said 'should not be implemented immediately.' And I though there was a difference in word choice between 'not yet to be studied' and 'no adequately understood.' Thanks!
User avatar
 
Mab6q
Thanks Received: 23
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 291
Joined: June 30th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by Mab6q Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:20 pm

In my opinion, E can easily be eliminated because it says nothing about study. The stimulus talks about not implementing this response not because there is a chance that it may exacerbate the problem but simply because it has not been STUDIED. Not studied --> dont implement.
"Just keep swimming"
 
ellylb
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 11
Joined: March 29th, 2016
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by ellylb Wed Sep 07, 2016 6:07 am

Okay let's get through this.

A) is incorrect because it is a CLASSIC mistaken negation. The stimulus concludes that since we don't know, we should not act

don't know -> don't act

Answer choice A negates this to say if we know -> act (mistaken negation).

B) is the correct answer. This is a general principle that if applied, warrants the conclusion in the stimulus. The stimulus suggests a problem-solving strategy (spreading iron particles over the surface of the ocean to counteract the greenhouse effect) but claims that it has yet to understand the consequences (side of effects of said strategy have yet to be studied) then concluding that the strategy should not yet be employed. This is completely summarised in B

C Exaggeration... we don't know if the consequences will be MORE serious. We just don't yet know what the consequences are. This is too strong.

D This is a conditional statement that exclaims: if strategy alters important resource -> should not act
This isn't quite the conclusion of the stimulus, which is about the consequences of the the alteration, not the alteration itself. In theory, alteration could be possible if we did understand the consequences. Therefore this principle is not broad enough in nature - too narrow.

E This is similar to C in that it goes beyond the facts of the stimulus. Nowhere in the stimulus is there indication that the suggested strategy would exacerbate "that problem"... perhaps the feared unknown consequences are NEW problems that would occur as a result and have nothing to do with exacerbating current ones.

Hope this helps!
 
AlexY297
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 8
Joined: September 26th, 2018
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by AlexY297 Fri Nov 02, 2018 6:25 pm

Is this a Principle question ? I was in between B and D and I thought that in B impermissible may have been too strong in tone? Thanks.
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 2780
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

by ohthatpatrick Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:37 pm

Yeah, it's a Principle question.

Principle questions come in many flavors: they can resemble Strengthen, Weaken, Inference, Matching, Necessary Assumption

The most typical type of Principle question is the kind that basically reads like Strengthen (although it normally acts like Sufficient Assumption)
which of the following principles, if valid, most justifies the argument

This type of Principle question is like Necessary Assumption, because it's asking which answer choice conforms to the reasoning. Necessary Assumptions conform to the author's reasoning.

So you were wise to be nervous of strong wording. It's possible for a principle here to help but be written so strongly that it doesn't conform to the author's reasoning.

But when we see strong language on Necessary Assumption, we just check to see whether the conclusion is certain of itself. If so, then it's fair for us to say that the author made a certain/definitive assumption.

Here, the author's conclusion is "this response SHOULD NOT be implemented immediately". It may sound like a weak claim since the author does not have a certain feeling about whether we should implement this response later, but the author is 100% sure we should not implement it now.

That's why we're okay with (B)'s strength of language. Right now, the consequences are not adequately understood, so right now it is impermissible to implement this strategy.

Hope this helps.