LSATMax and COVID-19:
Amid these difficult times, we're lowering the price on all courses.
Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Campus Rep Internship
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
October 2013 LSAT
Editorial: The legislature is considering allowing oil drilling in the Cape Simmons Nature Preserve. Supporters claim...
on October 7 at 03:45AM
why E is wrong?
I think E is also making sense here.
on October 7 at 05:03PM
Hi Jiayi, thanks for the question!
E is stating that there are other industrial activities occurring at Alphin Bay.
We are trying to strengthen the editorial's argument that by looking at Alphin Bay, we know that oiled drilling in Cape Simmons will damage the environment.
If there are other industrial activities and they do cause environmental damage, as opposed to the drilling, then this doesn't help us use Alphin Bay to prove our point that drilling is bad in Cape Simmons.
Conversely, if the other activities are neutral in effect or are even beneficial, this still doesn't tell us that the oil drilling in Cape Simmons will be problematic. This is because they claim that Cape Simmons will use "modern" methods.
Answer D strengthens the argument because it says, if your "modern" methods are the same as in Alphin Bay, then oil drilling will be problematic.
Hope this helps!
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.