Q13 - Emissions from automobiles that burn

[rbleverone]

Hey guys,

I confidently marked (A) as a loser because it specifically refers to methanol when eliminating an alternative 'effective way to reduce emissions' -- reducing the use of automobiles. I figured that, because the Stim uses methanol only as an example ("such as methanol") of its proposed solution ("replacing conventional diesel fuel... with cleaner-burning fuels...".), eliminating the possibility that reducing the use of automobiles wouldn't be more effective than the use of methanol was too specific. The Stim doesn't propose ONLY the use of methanol, but the use of 'cleaner-burning fuels.'

Here's the Negation Test: Reducing the use of automobiles WOULD be a more effective means to reduce... than the use of methanol.

I don't think that that weakens the argument because there could be cleaner-burning fuels other than methanol that reducing the use of automobiles would NOT be more effective than.

Am I completely off? As I was answering this question and read AC (A), I thought "Ha, can't trick me, LSAT" and was proud. NOPE.

[kylelitfin]

Hey guys,

I confidently marked (A) as a loser because it specifically refers to methanol when eliminating an alternative 'effective way to reduce emissions' -- reducing the use of automobiles. I figured that, because the Stim uses methanol only as an example ("such as methanol") of its proposed solution ("replacing conventional diesel fuel... with cleaner-burning fuels...".), eliminating the possibility that reducing the use of automobiles wouldn't be more effective than the use of methanol was too specific. The Stim doesn't propose ONLY the use of methanol, but the use of 'cleaner-burning fuels.'

Here's the Negation Test: Reducing the use of automobiles WOULD be a more effective means to reduce... than the use of methanol.

I don't think that that weakens the argument because there could be cleaner-burning fuels other than methanol that reducing the use of automobiles would NOT be more effective than.

Am I completely off? As I was answering this question and read AC (A), I thought "Ha, can't trick me, LSAT" and was proud. NOPE.

Here is how I reasoned it:

(A): We'll come back to it at the end.

(B): The stimulus merely states "such as methanol." Even look at the sentence construction, it appears between two commas and is not an integral piece of the conclusion. It's merely a possibility and the stimulus does not hinge upon methanol being effective. When you negate this it still doesn't destroy the conclusion. Wouldn't the author respond with, "Okay, so Methanol isn't cleaner burning, but we could go with electricity, muggle blood, baby unicorns etc."

(C): Irrelevant. Stimulus clearly states to "replace" and there is no suggestion that consumer choice is relevant.

(D): Relative answer choice that has no significance on the argument. Most serious? Great.

(E): So what? Maybe certain parts of the ozone diminish some pollution. Maybe wind blows it farther east. Maybe when there is cloud cover it travels with it? Who knows? Irrelevant.

(A): Defender and is correct. The stimulus states that the "ONLY effective way" is to replace the bad fuels with "cleaner-burning fuels." So, it's assuming that there is not other way to reduce the emissions problem like, reducing the amount of cars on the road.

And since you tried negating (B) what happens when you negate (A)? It completely destroys the conclusion of the stimulus. Reducing the amount of cars would be the MOST effective way to reduce emissions, not cleaner-burning fuels.

Does this help at all?

[WaltGrace1983]

(A): Defender and is correct. The stimulus states that the "ONLY effective way" is to replace the bad fuels with "cleaner-burning fuels." So, it's assuming that there is not other way to reduce the emissions problem like, reducing the amount of cars on the road.

And since you tried negating (B) what happens when you negate (A)? It completely destroys the conclusion of the stimulus. Reducing the amount of cars would be the MOST effective way to reduce emissions, not cleaner-burning fuels.

Does this help at all?

This is not the negation though I don't know if you intended it to be (and two years later, I am assuming you probably don't care haha). The negation would be "Reducing the use of automobiles would be a more effective means to reduce automobile emissions than the use of methanol."

The point is that the conclusion says that there is only ONE effective way to reduce emissions: it is to replace the conventional diesel fuel with cleaner-burning fossil fuels. If we negate (A), we get the idea that - not only is there multiple ways to reduce automobile emissions - but that reducing the use of automobiles would be an even more effective way to reduce emissions. Thus, the negation of (A) completely destabilizes the argument by showing that there are multiple - not just one - way to reduce emissions.