Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: Politicians claim their rules haven't hurt nature, but right after they let mining companies dump trash in the water, miles of streams ended up buried in waste.

Conclusion: Contrary to official denials, government policies have indeed caused significant damage to the environment.

Reasoning: The government recently removed a ban on dumping mining waste into water sources, and subsequently, hundreds of miles of streams have been buried under that waste.

Analysis: This argument relies on a causal link between the policy change and the environmental outcome. To be a necessary assumption, the argument must believe that burying hundreds of miles of vital streams actually constitutes 'serious environmental degradation.' If burying streams wasn't considered serious damage, the conclusion would fall apart. Look for an answer that bridges the gap between the specific evidence of buried streams and the broad claim of environmental degradation.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

6.

The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?

Correct Answer
E
We need it to be true that without repealing the ban, considerably less waste would have entered streams. Negation test: If just as much waste would have gone into streams even without repeal, then the policy did not cause the harm, and the argument fails. Thus E is necessary.
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