Principle JustifyDiff: Easy
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: A politician argues against stricter pollution rules because they would kill jobs, and we aren't sure if the cleaner air is worth the lost paychecks.
Conclusion: The government should not increase the current air quality standards for industrial emissions.
Reasoning: Raising standards would drive industries to move elsewhere, causing job losses, and there is no proof that the resulting environmental benefits would outweigh these economic costs.
Analysis: The politician is making a value judgment based on a cost-benefit analysis. To justify this reasoning, we need a principle that acts as a bridge, specifically one that favors the status quo when the benefits of a change are uncertain compared to the definite costs. Look for an answer that suggests a policy should not be enacted unless its benefits are clearly shown to exceed its negative impacts. The argument assumes that protecting jobs is a priority that should not be sacrificed for unproven environmental gains.
Conclusion: The government should not increase the current air quality standards for industrial emissions.
Reasoning: Raising standards would drive industries to move elsewhere, causing job losses, and there is no proof that the resulting environmental benefits would outweigh these economic costs.
Analysis: The politician is making a value judgment based on a cost-benefit analysis. To justify this reasoning, we need a principle that acts as a bridge, specifically one that favors the status quo when the benefits of a change are uncertain compared to the definite costs. Look for an answer that suggests a policy should not be enacted unless its benefits are clearly shown to exceed its negative impacts. The argument assumes that protecting jobs is a priority that should not be sacrificed for unproven environmental gains.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage12.Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the politician's reasoning?
Correct Answer
C
C directly matches the politician’s reasoning: alter policy only with compelling evidence that changing it yields better consequences than not changing. Since such evidence is said to be lacking, the conclusion not to raise the standards follows.
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