StrengthenDiff: Hard
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: A law says you can't dump super toxic waste unless you water it down first—but then it also says you aren't allowed to water it down. Why would the law include that second part?
Conclusion: The law should include a provision that forbids companies from diluting toxic waste to meet dumping standards.
Reasoning: The law requires high concentrations of XTX to be incinerated while allowing lower concentrations to be dumped, but it specifically bans diluting waste to reach those lower levels.
Analysis: To strengthen the argument for the anti-dilution provision, we need to explain why dilution doesn't actually solve the problem. The goal of the law is to reduce environmental harm from XTX. If a company dilutes 100 gallons of high-concentration waste into 1,000 gallons of low-concentration waste, the total amount of XTX entering the environment remains the same. Look for an answer that suggests the total quantity of the chemical, rather than just its concentration, is what causes environmental damage. This would explain why the law insists on incineration for high-volume toxins.
Conclusion: The law should include a provision that forbids companies from diluting toxic waste to meet dumping standards.
Reasoning: The law requires high concentrations of XTX to be incinerated while allowing lower concentrations to be dumped, but it specifically bans diluting waste to reach those lower levels.
Analysis: To strengthen the argument for the anti-dilution provision, we need to explain why dilution doesn't actually solve the problem. The goal of the law is to reduce environmental harm from XTX. If a company dilutes 100 gallons of high-concentration waste into 1,000 gallons of low-concentration waste, the total amount of XTX entering the environment remains the same. Look for an answer that suggests the total quantity of the chemical, rather than just its concentration, is what causes environmental damage. This would explain why the law insists on incineration for high-volume toxins.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage25.Which one of the following, if true, argues most strongly for the inclusion of the antidilution provision of the law?
Correct Answer
B
If present in sufficient quantities, diluted XTX is as harmful as more concentrated XTX. This shows that letting companies dilute to meet the 500 ppm rule would not reduce harm and could enable the same total hazard to enter the environment. That directly justifies the antidilution provision as necessary to achieve the law’s goal.
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