LSAT Explanation PT 30, S2, Q7: Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The

LSAT Question Stem

The drilling proponent's reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Method of Reasoning question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

The question type for this problem is Method of Reasoning (MOR). In this passage, we have two speakers: the Opponent of offshore oil drilling and the Proponent of offshore oil drilling. The Opponent argues that the projected benefits of drilling new oil wells are not worth the risk of environmental disaster, as they would only add one-half of 1 percent to the country's daily oil requirements. The Proponent then criticizes this argument by drawing a parallel to farming, suggesting that if we applied the same logic, no new farms would be allowed because they could not supply the total food needs of the country for more than a few minutes. The question asks us to identify how the drilling proponent's reply proceeds.

To help you understand the passage better, consider this simplified example: imagine someone arguing that it's not worth buying a new pair of shoes because they would only add 1% to their wardrobe. Another person might counter this argument by saying, "By that logic, you should never buy any clothes, because no single item could significantly increase the size of your wardrobe." The second person is showing the flaw in the first person's argument by applying it to a similar scenario.

Now, let's analyze each answer choice:

a) The Proponent does not offer any evidence in support of drilling. Instead, they demonstrate the flaw in the Opponent's argument by applying the same logic to a similar case (farming).

b) The Proponent does not claim that the statistics cited by the Opponent are factually inaccurate. They focus on the comparison to show that those statistics do not prove the Opponent's argument.

c) The Proponent points out the ridiculousness of the Opponent's argument, but does not concede that it is a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing. The Proponent's comparison suggests that the Opponent's argument would be ridiculous in any scenario.

d) This is the correct answer choice. The Proponent uses a parallel argument (farming) to illustrate the absurdity of the Opponent's argument. By showing that it would be unreasonable to draw the same conclusion about new farms from the same type of premise, the Proponent demonstrates that the Opponent's conclusion is also strikingly unsupported by their premise.

e) The Proponent does not propose a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the Opponent's evidence. They only argue that the Opponent's evidence does not support the conclusion they are trying to make, without suggesting it supports an alternative conclusion.