LSAT Explanation PT 30, S2, Q8: Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the drilling proponent's reply? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Weaken question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

In this LSAT problem, we are presented with an argument between an opponent of offshore oil drilling and a proponent of offshore oil drilling. The opponent argues that the projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster, as the oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of the country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent (premise). The proponent counters by saying that this is ridiculous and compares it to arguing that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of the country for more than a few minutes (premise). The question type is Weaken, and we are asked to identify the answer choice that most weakens the drilling proponent's reply.

Let's analyze the argument in the passage. The opponent's argument is based on the premise that the benefits of drilling new oil wells are not worth the environmental risk. The proponent, on the other hand, tries to counter this argument by drawing an analogy with new farms. The proponent's conclusion is that the opponent's argument is ridiculous and that new oil wells should be allowed.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be, "Is the analogy between new oil wells and new farms valid?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices:

a) New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that run by new offshore oil drilling.

This answer choice weakens the proponent's argument by pointing out that the analogy between new oil wells and new farms is not valid because new farms do not involve a risk similar to that of new offshore oil drilling. This undermines the proponent's conclusion by showing that the analogy is flawed. This is the correct answer.

b) Many of the largest oil deposits are located under land that is unsuitable for farming.

This answer choice is irrelevant to the argument because it does not address the analogy between new oil wells and new farms or the risks associated with them.

c) Unlike oil, common agricultural products fulfill nutritional needs rather than fuel requirements.

This answer choice is also irrelevant because it only points out a difference between oil and agricultural products. It does not weaken the proponent's analogy or conclusion.

d) Legislation governing new oil drilling has been much more thoroughly articulated than has that governing new farms.

This answer choice is not relevant to the argument, as it discusses the legislation governing new oil drilling and new farms, which is not related to the analogy or the risks associated with them.

e) The country under discussion imports a higher proportion of the farm products it needs than it does of the oil it needs.

This answer choice is also irrelevant because it discusses the country's imports, which is not related to the analogy or the risks associated with new oil wells and new farms.

In conclusion, the correct answer is A, as it weakens the proponent's argument by pointing out that the analogy between new oil wells and new farms is not valid due to the differences in risks involved.