Q10 - One year ago, a municipality banned

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Evaluate

Stimulus Breakdown:
A ban was put in place on phosphate-based detergents. Phosphate pollution went down. Therefore, the ban was a success!

Answer Anticipation:
While the conclusion isn't explicitly causal, it does rely on a causal assumption - mainly that the ban was responsible for the decline in phosphate pollution. This type of implicit correlation/causation flaw (here, two things happened at the same time, so one must have caused the other) is showing up more and more often on the LSAT, so be on the lookout!

When there's a Correlation/Causation flaw, the correct answer for an Evaluate question will usually deal with an alternative cause - the question will ask whether or not something else changed that could have brought about the effect.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The reasons for breaking the law aren't relevant to its effectiveness.

(B) Out of scope. The argument cares about phophate pollution, not other types of pollution.

(C) Bingo. This answer/question (Jeopardy!-style) brings up another possible explanation for the decline in pollution - a change to how the water is treated. If there were changes made, then those could have reduced the phosphate pollution. If no changes were made, it's more likely that the ban had an impact.

(D) Out of scope. No matter how much of a contribution the treatment plant makes to the overall level of pollution, it's still possible for a ban to have an impact.

(E) Possibly survives a first pass. Enforcement is relevant to whether a ban works, but, in this case, the answer talks about them trying to stop people, not actually stopping them. The ban could be effective with or without enforcement, so this is ultimately out of scope.

Takeaway/Pattern: For Evaluate questions, try answer the question in the answer choice with opposite answers. If both answers have an impact on the argument - one strengthens; one weakens - you have your answer.

#officialexplanation

[HughM388]

Question Type:
Evaluate

Stimulus Breakdown:
A ban was put in place on phosphate-based detergents. Phosphate pollution went down. Therefore, the ban was a success!

Answer Anticipation:
While the conclusion isn't explicitly causal, it does rely on a causal assumption - mainly that the ban was responsible for the decline in phosphate pollution. This type of implicit correlation/causation flaw (here, two things happened at the same time, so one must have caused the other) is showing up more and more often on the LSAT, so be on the lookout!

When there's a Correlation/Causation flaw, the correct answer for an Evaluate question will usually deal with an alternative cause - the question will ask whether or not something else changed that could have brought about the effect.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The reasons for breaking the law aren't relevant to its effectiveness.

(B) Out of scope. The argument cares about phophate pollution, not other types of pollution.

(C) Bingo. This answer/question (Jeopardy!-style) brings up another possible explanation for the decline in pollution - a change to how the water is treated. If there were changes made, then those could have reduced the phosphate pollution. If no changes were made, it's more likely that the ban had an impact.

(D) Out of scope. No matter how much of a contribution the treatment plant makes to the overall level of pollution, it's still possible for a ban to have an impact.

(E) Possibly survives a first pass. Enforcement is relevant to whether a ban works, but, in this case, the answer talks about them trying to stop people, not actually stopping them. The ban could be effective with or without enforcement, so this is ultimately out of scope.

Takeaway/Pattern: For Evaluate questions, try answer the question in the answer choice with opposite answers. If both answers have an impact on the argument - one strengthens; one weakens - you have your answer.

#officialexplanation

I don't think (D) is out of scope, and it's arguably just as important as (C). If there's another source of phosphate pollution—if treatment plants from, say, much larger neighboring municipalities empty into the same waterways—then it's possible that the populations of those neighboring municipalities, and not the muni in question, are responsible for the reduction in phosphates. If the most of phosphate pollution originates from other municipalities then the lower phosphate levels being detected may have little or nothing to do with phosphate use in the muni in question. If the overwhelming majority of that pollution comes, in fact, from another municipality, then the municipality in question could have reduced or increased their phosphate use dramatically, and the difference would hardly be detectable, so small is its contribution to the total.