Youraisemeup wrote:
Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although, this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following if true most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobsters.
(E) Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.
Source : PowerScore
Source : LSAT PrepTest35 Q8
KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Weaken the Argument“
Weakens” signals the need to identify evidence and conclusion and to drive a wedge between them. “
The proposal is pointless” should practically scream “I am the conclusion,” since such a value judgment cannot stand without supporting evidence. The proposal is to
reduce local sewage so as to
protect lobsters against gill diseases, and the alleged “
pointlessness” stems from the brief lobster lifespan, too brief for the creatures “
to be harmed by those diseases.” Of course, the proposal gains merit should one prove that a positive benefit accrues from preventing lobster gill disease, and (E) does just that. If (E) is true,
the removed sewage should result in healthier lobsters who, in turn, will lead to
healthier (or at least less sickly)
lobster eaters.
Other sources of harm to lobsters (A) can be addressed in another proposal, but have nothing to do with the rationality of this one. That the open ocean leads to longer-lived crustacea (B) is irrelevant to the health effects of “sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught.” By arguing that breeding success is irrelevant to pollution, (C) if anything lends credence to the claim that the sewage removal is pointless. And the detection of gill diseases (D) would be irrelevant to the claim about harmfulness even if one’s everyday knowledge didn’t tell us that people don’t tend to eat the shells but rather the lobster meat inside them.
Quote:
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: The proposal to stop putting sewage into the harbor is pointless.
REASONING: Lobsters (eaten by humans) get gill disease when sewage is dumped in their water. But most lobsters don’t live long enough to be harmed by the disease.
ANALYSIS: This is one of the worst arguments I’ve seen on the LSAT, but it’s also very clever. So clever that many people don’t even see what’s wrong with it. The lobsters aren’t harmed, so what’s the issue, they ask?
Would you like to eat lobster contaminated by sewage and that have gill disease?
Just because the lobsters aren’t harmed doesn’t meant that there is no point to preventing gill disease. We eat them!
Further, the conclusion is really, really broad: the proposal is pointless. But the only evidence is about lobsters. There might be some benefit to cleaning the harbor, apart from healthier lobster. Maybe some fish will get less sick, maybe we can swim in the harbor, maybe the town will smell better, etc. There could be many other benefits that show the proposal is NOT “pointless.”
___________
A. The proposal was only talking about redirecting sewage. Other contaminants are irrelevant since no one was proposing to clean them up.
B. That’s nice. But we don’t know why lobsters live longer in oceans and we have no evidence that it is due to lack of sewage.
C. This would strengthen the argument. Sewage doesn’t seem to harm lobster breeding.
D. This doesn’t really affect anything since the lobsters don’t get sick from the gill disease.
E. CORRECT. This gives us a good reason to prevent gill disease: we get sick if we eat polluted lobster. So the proposal has a point: it could make us healthier.