Q23 - Asbestos, an almost indestructible

[ebrickm2]

My concerns about this question more center around how an answer choice functions to strengthen something in an argument.

Question be could strengthen the argument, though not necessarily, individuals could wear masks and the harm would be averted.

I know E is right, I just can't fully explain why B doesn't strengthen as much!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

(B) is a very attractive answer, and the differences between (B) and (E) are subtle and worth investigating. Hopefully I can help.

The core of the argument can be paraphrased as follows:

Not removing asbestos doesn't pose health risk but removing it could

therefore

The government shouldn't require removal.

Notice that the first part of (B) -- removing asbestos can pose a health risk -- has already been stated in the premise -- the argument doesn't get strengthened when it is stated again.

The second part of the answer choice assigns a subgroup that isn't constructive.

Imagine someone is trying to convince you to see a movie -- he shows you a poll that reveals that everyone who has seen the movie thus far has enjoyed it. Then he shows you another poll -- people between the ages of 30 and 40 who saw the movie enjoyed it -- would that add to the argument? Not significantly.

Furthermore, the second part presents a situation that can easily be avoided -- they can just wear protective gear.

Notice that (E) presents evidence that adds to the discussion (we've talked about the danger of removing asbestos, but not the danger of the asbestos after it's been removed) and is seemingly more difficult to avoid (most of the time it's forgotten, and there is no guarantee of what will happen to it).

[alberto.o.205]

The conclusion is precisely "the government shouldn't require the removal of all asbestos insulation" so I picked C. Can you explain to me why choice C is incorrect or rather why E is a better choice than C?

My logic was that if some kinds of asbestos are more risky than others than some kinds of asbestos don't pose enough of a risk to warrant removal but others would.

[geverett]

I felt the same thing as the previous poster. I honed in on "all" as well in the conclusion. Would love to hear more on this question.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

I can definitely see why (C) would be attractive, especially if you focus on the "all" in the conclusion.

However, the "all" is not terribly significant, I would argue, to the reasoning the author is using.

Essentially, the author is saying --

Hey, not removing asbestos poses no health risk.
Moving it could pose a health risk.

Therefore, it doesn't make sense to make a rule that everyone has to remove asbestos.

Now, if the argument had different reasons for reaching the conclusion, (C) would be a much more attractive answer. Imagine we had this:

"Just because Tom didn't have health issues removing asbestos doesn't mean others won't have health issues. Therefore, we shouldn't require everyone to remove asbestos."

If this was the case, and we had an answer like "Some kinds of asbestos pose health risks and others don't" that would be a really good answer, because the reasoning issue is about whether one is representative of all, and the answer validates the variations in outcome (hey, maybe it can be dangerous in certain situations) that the argument is assuming.

However, that's not the reasoning issue in this argument. The fact that some kinds of asbestos are different from others doesn't directly strengthen the link between "Hey it could be dangerous to remove -- let's not require that we remove it."

Another point I'll make is notice that (C) relates to a discussion about a range of health risks ("greater") whereas the argument is more black and white -- about posing health risks or not posing health risks. We'd have to make some assumptions to relate something about the range to this argument.

That was a surprisingly tough question to answer, and I hope you find the above helpful. Please do follow up if you want to continue the conversation.

[geverett]

That was really good Mike. I just looked back at the question and it seems to make more sense. The argument is really just saying "hey leaving asbestos alone will pose no health risk so we shouldn't remove it where it runs the potential of causing health risk." We just need something that shores up this argument a little bit more by affirming the principle that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" or showing perhaps an adverse consequence of attempting to fix it.

(A) Asbestos danger relative to smoking, drugs, and alcohol is irrelevant. Get rid of it.
(B) This is a bit tempting. Will they wear the gear? Will they not? We would need to insert an assumption here that these workers would not in fact wear the gear to make this work. Get rid of it.
(C) The relative health risks of different kinds of asbestos is also irrelevant. It is tempting in light of the "all" however in the stimulus.
(D) This seems like more of a premise booster to the claim the author makes in the first sentence that when asbestos is disturbed it poses health risks. Also this argument is about asbestos "removal" not necessarily building renovations or demolitions. Get rid of it.
(E) This strengthens the argument oh so slightly. It basically just says that removed asbestos stands a good chance of ending up in a landfill where it could be disturbed again. Why open up the chance of having the asbestos possibly disturbed when you can leave it alone in the building and it won't pose any risk?

Thanks for bringing clarity to this Mike!

[zainrizvi]

Hmmmm....

Isn't the first sentence suggesting a conditional relationship?

Asbestos causes harm -> disturbed and released into environment

Now the second line is saying asbestos is disturbed and release into environment, but we don't have any reason to believe that will cause harm (don't have that as a sufficient condition).

Hence B is right because it slightly strengthens that connection (releasing asbestos -> harm) by saying that asbestos can cause harm to people if they don't wear protective gear.

My main issue with E) is that it doesn't use the reasoning or build on the premises in any way - it just seems to be additional support for the conclusion.....would appreciate any help.

[tommywallach]

Hey Zain,

Sounds like you know your conditional logic surrounding the use of the word "unless"! For those who don't:

Mike will not come to the party unless Sara comes.

If Mike comes, we know Sara came.

But if Sara comes, we don't know if Mike will come.

So in this example, we know:

-Asbestos Removed --> -Health Risk
Health Risk --> Asbestos Removed

Well done!

Unfortunately, you then try to solve this question as an inference question, instead of a strengthen. Could we infer (B)? Absolutely! But does it help the argument? Not at all. In fact, we already know that!

On a strengthen/weaken question, it's VERY normal to bring in new information, so don't be skeptical of (E) for that reason. I agree that it's a very slight strengthen, but I would disagree that it doesn't relate to the prompt. We've already been told that "disturbance" of asbestos is what causes health problems. (E) tells us that if we remove asbestos, it could be disturbed again, causing even more health problems.

It's Q23, so you know it's gonna be the toughest question in the section (or among the 2 or 3 toughest). And it is!

-t

[WaltGrace1983]

I was just going to ask that question about the reversed conditional logic. I think this could have also been a tough flaw problem. Can someone check over my reasoning for (D) and (E)? I feel like I have some new insight on (D) that hasn't been analyzed and I am a bit confused on (E).

(D), to me, actually weakens the argument significantly. It does so because of the word "inevitably." While we could say, "we don't know if there will be building renovations or demolition," this answer choice actually makes this a very real possibility - or perhaps inevitable occurrence!

"Asbestos is inevitably distributed by building renovations or building demolition."

If we accept this as true, we know that the asbestos is going to be disturbed. It will be disturbed in one of two ways: (1) building renovations or (2) building demolition. So what is the solution? Well we could just remove it and, to say this, we would obviously weaken the argument. Or, if we want to go in a different way, we could say "meh" and flip a coin as to remove it or not - this would also weaken the argument or, at the very least, do nothing to it. It certainly cannot strengthen it! So as you can see, that word "inevitably" is crucial here.

My question with (E) is that there still is a bit of assumption-making happening here. We know that removing asbestos is going to disturb it. Thus we have at least ONE instance of it potentially posing a health risk. What (E) says is that we have the possibility of having ANOTHER possibility of posing a health risk if we remove it.

So is merely opening up the possibility of a plan backfiring on you strengthening an argument against that plan?

EDIT: in addition, (C) would also be wrong - even if you focused on "all" - because we KNOW that the asbestos is going to produce a health risk. "How much" of a health risk is moot. Yet what if it said, "some kinds of asbestos, when removed, pose absolutely no health risk?" Would that still be pretty weak? This question is a bit idiotic because it mistakes the sufficient for necessary, I bet that if it was rewritten today it wouldn't do that.

[maryadkins]

Great thinking on (D) Walt! And I think you're right that there's a colorable argument that (E) also weakens, since we're talking about the health risk of asbestos in general.

As for your question about (C):

Yet what if it said, "some kinds of asbestos, when removed, pose absolutely no health risk?" Would that still be pretty weak?

Yeah, super weak. I wouldn't say that strengthens. It's too mild with the "some" because we know that there are at least some kinds that do pose a health risk.

[asafezrati]

LEAVE ASBESTOS ALONE!!!

[tommywallach]

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Can we get a more in-dept explanation on why A is incorrect? That was my initial pick. My initial thought process was that if it posses less of a health risk than smoking etc.. it would strengthen's the claim that we should not require government removal of it.

[ohthatpatrick]

Why is the government asking to remove asbestos in the first place?

We don't really know. You seem to be assuming that the government WANTS asbestos removed because asbestos poses a health risk.

If the author were arguing, "Hey, govt., don't remove it; it's not THAT risky to health", then (A) would strengthen that position.

But the author is arguing, "Don't remove it; it's TOO risky to health". (A) doesn't sound like that at all.

Part of the trouble interpreting (A) is figuring out whether we're talking about
"Asbestos, undisturbed"
vs.
"Removing asbestos"

Asbestos, undisturbed poses NO health risk. So (A) would be telling us something we already know, something the author has already told us.

"Removing asbestos" is something the author thinks is VERY dangerous. If (A) were talking about THAT, then (A) would go against the author.

So depending on how you interpret (A), it's either saying something we've already been told (asbestos poses no health risk) or it's saying something that would go against the author (if it were saying that "removing asbestos poses far less risk").

But make sure you also 'feel' why (A) is a stinky answer. Where did these other categories of risk come from? Why would we care? Was anything in the argument making comparisons? Was the author ever claiming that asbestos was RISKIER than something else?

LSAT continually goofs on absolute vs. relative ideas.

I can validly call my $5 cup of coffee expensive, even though it's far less expensive than a house, a vacation, or a Tesla.