Q5 - Environment minister: Because of our concern

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
This country wants to reduce carbon emissions over the next decade. Since trees absorb carbon, the plan is to plant trees.

Answer Anticipation:
When an argument suggests a course of action, it needs to establish all of the relevant information about the impact of that action. Here, planting trees will, well, create trees to absorbe carbon dioxide. However, the minister never discusses if this plan will have other effects that would balance it out. As an example, it's possible that the process of planting trees burns more carbon (e.g., if there's a tree planting machine used) than the trees remove from the atmosphere.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. These trees could just as easily be planted on public land. Additionally, it could be the case that the environmental initiative has a lot of funding, and the minister's team would be more than willing to pay the owners of the land.

(B) Out of scope. First off, the deforested land isn't related to the land that is to be reforested. Second, even if the number of trees aren't directly related to the increase in carbon emissions, that doesn't preclude trees from being part of the solution.

(C) Boom. Planting trees requires digging up the ground, which will pollute more than the trees will save. I'd check the stimulus to make sure the 10-year timeline is in the conclusion (it is, by referencing the commitment that was defined as being over 10 years), and then select this answer.

(D) Out of scope. The conclusion is about hitting the commitment, not what scientists think is necessary. This answer would be more relevant in an argument with a conclusion that stated the current plan would solve global warming.

(E) Out of scope. The conclusion talks about the commitment of lowering carbon emissions, so these other gases are irrelevant.

Takeaway/Pattern:
When the LSAT discusses a plan that is implementing a change to reach a goal, it is flawed unless it brings up all the outcomes of this change as they result to the goal. Here, the trees will absorb CO2, but the minister never states whether planting trees will release any CO2.

#officialexplanation