Q5 - Large quantities of lead dust

[jackie8848]

I did choose the correct answer (C) by elimination. However, I still don't think (C) actually weakens the argument. The conclusion is that the journal should run an article on how to reduce the risk of lead poisoning associated with do-it-yourself renovation. Since this article targets those who already decide to undertake do-it-yourself renovation, it only tries to demonstrate how to reduce the risk when homeowners renovate the house by themselves instead of trying to persuade them to hire the professionals. I would think to weaken the argument, one should argue how pointless this article would be in actually reducing the risk for the do-it-yourself owners.

[noah]

I'm not sure where you get this part from:

Since this article targets those who already decide to undertake do-it-yourself renovation,

How do you know who it's targeting?

Also, isn't the following another assumption:

it only tries to demonstrate how to reduce the risk when homeowners renovate the house by themselves instead of trying to persuade them to hire the professionals.

And why is it pointless?

one should argue how pointless this article would be in actually reducing the risk for the do-it-yourself owners.

Reducing risk seems like a good point!

The conclusion of this argument is that the journal should run an article for homeowners on how to reduce the risk of lead poisoning when doing a DIY renovation.

Why?

Because homeowners will disregard warnings and do these renovations themselves instead of hire a contractor (who can do it more safely).

This is a weakener question, so what's the gap?

Well, as (C) suggests, maybe printing that article will lead more homeowners to do the job themselves, as they'll think "well, if this journal wrote an article on it, it must be fine to do it."

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is out of scope - what the homeowners know is irrelevant. We know that lead can be released.

(B) is about why folks do jobs themselves. This explains the interest, but doesn't help us weaken the argument that the journal should print an article. If anything, it strengthens it.

(D) is tempting, but it strengthens! This tells us why the article would be useful.

(E) brings in some info that a bunch of people would choose professionals IF the price were the same, but we don't know if the price would be the same! Maybe it's always cheaper to do it yourself.

[ttunden]

How does C argue against the recommendation though? If the magazine publishes the article, then if any one were going to do a DIY project they would have less risk of lead poisoning. The articles job is to reduce the risk so if more people did the work themselves, they would not be in any danger.

I thought C would strengthen their recommendation since that article is geared towards this market and objective is to prevent the risks described earlier in the stimulus.

[noah]

How does C argue against the recommendation though? If the magazine publishes the article, then if any one were going to do a DIY project they would have less risk of lead poisoning. The articles job is to reduce the risk so if more people did the work themselves, they would not be in any danger.

I thought C would strengthen their recommendation since that article is geared towards this market and objective is to prevent the risks described earlier in the stimulus.

Good question.

While it's true that the article will help protect those that would have done it themselves anyway, does it help protect those that would not have? Note that we're told in the second sentence that these renovations should be done only by the pros. The goal of the recommendation is to reduce the risk of lead poisoning associated with DIY work. That could be achieved by educating the DIYers, but it also could be achieved by getting potential DIYers to not do it themselves!

If (C) is true and the article leads more inexperienced folks to do it, it doesn't reduce the risk of lead poisoning associated with DIY renovations but increases them since the article will increase the number of DIYers putting themselves at risk.

The idea here when debating this core is to ask whether there are unforeseen consequences.

[xiao.xiao.hu.cl]

The argument core : many people will DIY despite many risks→ Journal should run an article to reduce risks.

The gap is whether Journal's article can reduce the risks arosed by DIY. It makes more people who otherwise would have hired professionals DIY, which is more potientially risky.

[ZIYAOW681]

I initially missed C....

Now I think C is saying there is a probability that - the aggregate reduction in risks resulted from people learning DIY risks control may be smaller than the aggregate increase in risks resulted from such professional-to-DIY diversion. If the net change in total risks is positive, then the recommendation is bad.

That weakens the recommendation.

[BangyuW932]

Hi there. I'm truly confused about this question even if I have scanned the possible right explanations from other platforms.

Link1: http://jtaken.csoft.net/LSAT/Test Explanations/preptest11.pdf

Link2: https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=8854

For me, C looks like an argument strengthening the content of passage's recommendation( it appeals to the more non-skilled workers to do a risky task), but it also looks like an argument weakening the act of giving a recommendation itself (it goes straight into the initiative of reducing risk). So, as a non-native ENGLISH speaker, I'm confused by the question stem. Is it asking us to weaken the content of the recommendation or asking us to weaken the act of giving the recommendation?

[Laura Damone]

Hi there!

That question stem is VERY tricky. It is asking you to weaken the argument's main conclusion: Homeowners' Journal should run an article about protecting yourself from lead poisoning during a do-it-yourself renovation. That is "the passage's recommendation about an article."

To argue strongly against this recommendation, we'll need to demonstrate that the evidence doesn't justify the conclusion. The evidence provided was that these renovations are risky, and better left to professionals, but that homeowners are doing them anyway. If they're going to do it anyway, we might as well tell them how to protect themselves.

This seems like pretty good logic, until we read C. If C is true, then we're not just helping homeowners who were already going to do the renovation themselves. We're actually encouraging more homeowners to do these risky renovations. If the goal of the magazine is to help keep homeowners safe, running this article might endanger more people than it helps protect. That's a powerful argument against running the article.

And one last thing: The confusing wording of the question stem is something we see a lot more frequently on old tests than on new ones. They test writers are more conscious than ever of their English as a second language test-takers, and they've tried to make the tasks of the questions consistently clear.

Hope this helps, and good luck!