In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States automobile industry argued that meeting the act's standards for...
Julie-VJuly 24, 2019
Choice (C)
Hi LSAT Max,
The explanation for (D) definitely helped, especially when the automobile industry's claims was compared to"the boy who cried wolf". I was wondering if my flawed logic to choose choice (C) had anything to do with putting more weight on the 1967 catalytic converter. I assumed that since there was a product to disprove the industry's claims that the act isn't economically feasible or environmentally necessary, then that would be a counter argument against the industry's claims. Is the converter instead supposed to show how the industry was proven wrong once before? Many thanks in advance!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
(C) says, "A flaw is pointed out in the reasoning used by the automakers to reach their conclusion."
The reason we can get rid of (C) is because the author never addresses the reasoning of the automakers. We only know that the automakers were wrong in the past. You're right—the converter was simply used to show how the industry was proven wrong in the past. The reasoning of the automakers is never attacked by the author.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
