Q23

[mdkim1709]

Hi Manhattan LSAT!! I narrowed this question down to A and E, and went with A. I thought there was more evidence for A (basically lines 15-24) whereas I'm having trouble finding specific evidence for chlorine being the MOST damaging element anywhere in the passage. How should I approach these kinds of questions in the future?
Thank you!!

[ky1e510]

I'm not with MH but I'll try to explain how I got the answer to see if it helps you out. I got to E basically because I skimmed answers A - D and had no memory of anything being specifically mentioned. ( I also did a quick check for choice C to see if there was a year mentioned to support the choice but I couldn't find it) Once I got to E I remembered reading chlorine was the big problem with CFCs. I looked to confirm and found support from lines 26-28 mentioning chlorine devastates the stratosphere. That was enough support for me to confirm E. In a nutshell I tried to eliminate all the wrong choices first and by default I got to E.

[andrewgong01]

I didn't like "E" though it was too extreme. It said "MOST" damaging and the passage never said it was most damaging. It just said it was devastating but there could be other elements that can cause equal or more harm.

A,B,C I agree can be eliminated because it was never answered in the text.

Brief Summary how I eliminated the first three
A= Never said it was a laboratory; if anything it sounds like it was conducted in real life outside of a lab and it was observing things going up into the sky
B= No concrete statistics in the passage
C= Trap answer because it did say in 1974 a discovery was made and then "as a result" they went to Congress. However, it could be 1976 they testified in Congress or a lot later

But, Choice "D" to me was attractive because its language was gentle and seemed easier to prove than proving Chlorine is the most damaging. D is saying that are there other chemicals without chlorine that contribute to the destruction of the ozone and the passage made it sound like there are other elements besides chlorine that contribute to the destruction but the passage only wants to focus on chlorine. For example, Line 21 said "Two freon gases" were studied and broke into constituent elements in the atmosphere. It is true the passage never then said other elements that were broken up in the atmosphere were destructive because the passage goes on to focus about chlorine but the passage never said chlorine was the most destructive either

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree with everyone that the passage never explicitly says that chlorine is the most damaging constituent element, but how could you read that portion of the text and think otherwise?

I don't know anything about chemistry, but I'm assuming a
chloro-floro-carbon
breaks down into
chlorine, flourine, and carbon

If flourine or carbon were as devastating as chlorine, why would the author make such a big moment out of discussing chlorine?

Even if CFC's had dozens of constituent ingredients, it's clear from the text that CHLORINE is the one we're worried about.

[DPCTE4325]

If you were tricked by D like me, it's probably because you weren't reading carefully enough. I picked D because I thought justification could be found in lines 21-26, specifically "two freon gases" & "break down into their constituent elements, including chlorine." But D is wrong because

1) the two freon gases are TYPES of CFCs (includes chlorine so D doesn't apply)
2) we know that these ages break down into their constituent elements, INCLUDING chlorine, but these other "constituent elements" are never talked about. Do we even know if they contribute to the destruction of ozone molecules? Only chlorine is talked about.

Therefore, when D qualifies its statement with "any chemical that does NOT contain chlorine".. we just simply don't know.

As for E, the question stem is closer to "most strongly supported" than "Must be true". So even if the passage doesn't say "most", as Patrick stated, it's certainly inferable.