Principle JustifyDiff: Easy
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: Paying extra to 'offset' your flight's carbon footprint doesn't really help the planet because the projects your money funds would have happened even if you hadn't paid.
Conclusion: Carbon offset programs offered by airlines are essentially useless.
Reasoning: The money from these programs supports environmental projects that were already going to occur, meaning the programs don't actually cause any new reduction in emissions.
Analysis: The argument hinges on the idea that for an action to be 'effective,' it must produce a result that wouldn't have happened otherwise. To justify this reasoning, we need a principle that links 'effectiveness' to 'incremental change.' Look for a rule stating that a project is only an effective offset if it is directly responsible for a reduction that would not have occurred without that specific investment. This principle would bridge the gap between the fact (the projects were already happening) and the judgment (the schemes are ineffective).
Conclusion: Carbon offset programs offered by airlines are essentially useless.
Reasoning: The money from these programs supports environmental projects that were already going to occur, meaning the programs don't actually cause any new reduction in emissions.
Analysis: The argument hinges on the idea that for an action to be 'effective,' it must produce a result that wouldn't have happened otherwise. To justify this reasoning, we need a principle that links 'effectiveness' to 'incremental change.' Look for a rule stating that a project is only an effective offset if it is directly responsible for a reduction that would not have occurred without that specific investment. This principle would bridge the gap between the fact (the projects were already happening) and the judgment (the schemes are ineffective).
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage9.Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?
Correct Answer
B
B states the but‑for principle: if an outcome would have occurred without an action, then the outcome is not a consequence of that action. That exactly licenses the step from “the projects would have proceeded anyway” to “offset payments did not prevent any emissions,” thereby justifying the argument’s conclusion that offsets are ineffective.
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