Q14 - Most of the air pollution

[contropositive]

I cannot see the flaw in this argument. I thought maybe it's part-to-whole but I am not sure. I picked the wrong answer during timed PT and review. I don't get it at all ... thank you

[heeeeezah]

I think the flaw in this reasoning is that even if people move from the largest cities to rural areas, the country as a whole could still be producing same amount of pollution. The major cities will be polluting less than before, BUT that doesn't prove the fact that country as a whole will pollute less.

In other words, the replacement (rural areas) will now produce a lot of pollution due to people coming from large cities.

Similarly in D, the replacement for calories (snacks) can still provide a lot of calories as the previous breakfast, lunch and dinner, meaning the overall calories will not be reduced.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great response! I'll put up a complete explanation for posterity.

Type: Match the Flaw

Task: Diagnose a flaw. Put it into generic (non-specific) language, and find the best answer choice match.

ARGUMENT CORE
evidence -
Most air pollution comes from large cities. If these cities had less people, there would be less pollution.

conclusion -
If people moved from large cities to smaller ones, there would be less air pollution in the country.

DIAGNOSE THE FLAW
To some people, this flaw might jump out. "How have you cut down on national air pollution? You have the same population doing the same polluting. You're just moving some of the pollution from city to rural!"

To others, you might initially hear it sounding pretty persuasive. The conclusion would be valid if we said "air pollution in the largest cities would be reduced".

If you initially don't hear an argument as flawed, try to think of a way to argue the ANTI-CONCLUSION.

"How would I argue that even when people move from cities to rural areas, national air pollution is NOT reduced?"

PUT IT INTO THE ABSTRACT
We had a problem (pollution).
The author proposes a bogus solution to try fixing it (have people move from big cities to smaller ones).

In a more nuanced way, we could say the flaw is "re-distributing the problem vs. actually reducing the problem".

SHORTCUTS?
With Matching problems, you can potentially cut down on the energy-intensive reading of all five answer choices by bailing as soon as you see a mismatch for your recipe of ingredients. You might have to revisit such an answer later, but on a first pass it's good to stay light on your feet when you smell a bad answer.

(A) This conclusion doesn't sound anything the original argument's. Bail.

(B) This conclusion is kinda similar. Moving from apartment to family home (solution) would help increase living space (problem). But it looks like this is a valid solution, not a bogus one. After all, the family home DOES have more living space. This isn't reallocating a problem without actually solving it.

(C) Just like (A). It's concluding the "most" claim, which was a premise in the original argument. Bail.

(D) Keep it. It doesn't quite feel like problem/solution, but it has a similar feel of "redistributing vs. reducing". You're clearly not eating fewer calories per day if you just re-allocate some of your calories away from big meals and into snacks.

(E) Right away this feels trappy because it's recycling the topic of "air pollution". In Matching questions, LSAT loves to include an answer with a similar TOPIC, even though what's really being tested is ABSTRACT STRUCTURE. This is still a flawed argument, but it doesn't have the same objection of "redistribution vs. reduction".

It's pretty fair to say that we would REDUCE air pollution if we switched to the public transportation system.

The flaws here are 1. not knowing whether people would actually use the public transportation (car trips COULD be replaced by public transpo, but WOULD they?) and 2. not knowing whether car trips were the primary source of air pollution to begin with.

====

That means the correct answer must be (D). It was the only one that confused allocating a certain budget differently with reducing the overall budget.

This doesn't have if/then language, but the conclusion is still suggesting that following a plan (fewer calories for main meals, remainder for snacks) will

[krisk743]

I don't understand how this a/c can be D.


Is this not a part to whole flaw?

He concludes the country AS A WHOLE, will have reduced air pollution by sending a few people out of the urban cities. I get how it doesn't make sense but I was looking for part to whole and found A to be exactly that.



Can anyone actually answer one of my questions please?

[lunazhuyu]

I don't understand how this a/c can be D.


Is this not a part to whole flaw?

He concludes the country AS A WHOLE, will have reduced air pollution by sending a few people out of the urban cities. I get how it doesn't make sense but I was looking for part to whole and found A to be exactly that.



Can anyone actually answer one of my questions please?

Yes it is a part/whole flaw as previous post by ohthatpatrick said, and notice the part we want to parallel is that the whole seems being changed by stated premise( part change), but we know actually the whole does not.

D imitates that perfectly. Javier's total calorie consumption(the whole) has decreased by stated solution, which is lower down the proportion of meals but add sneaks.(the part)

For A, I just don't see this whole-part relationship. A puts a straightforward conditional statement: if the city Monique lives in has a soaring housing price, then they should spend more on housing. But the conclusion does not match: it states the part increases( the money Monique spends on housing), instead of the whole(Monique's salary) increases, otherwise it would match.

Hope this helps.