WeakenDiff: Hard

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: A company claims it's better for the environment to buy up old, dirty cars than to fix their own factories because those cars represent a much larger portion of total pollution.

Conclusion: Buying and disposing of old cars will result in a greater reduction of air pollution than redesigning the company's plants.

Reasoning: The company's plants are responsible for only 4 percent of local pollution, whereas cars built before 1980 are responsible for 30 percent.

Analysis: The spokesperson is confusing the 'total amount' of pollution from a source with the 'potential reduction' they can achieve. Even if old cars cause 30% of pollution, the company's plan only works if they can actually buy enough of those cars to offset the 4% they could eliminate by fixing their own plants. Look for an answer that suggests the car-buying program is too small in scale to outperform a total plant redesign.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

16.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the company spokesperson's argument?

Correct Answer
C
C undercuts the plan’s effectiveness: if almost none of the cars sold to the company still run, then buying and disposing of them won’t reduce current emissions, weakening the conclusion that this campaign cuts more pollution than plant redesign.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep