May 2020 LSAT Section 3 Question 17

Mateo: Global warming has caused permafrost to melt under several arctic villages, forcing all their inhabitants to r...

simi_27@yahoo.com on August 18, 2021

May 2020 -Sec 3 - Q17

Why is A not a correct choice. Is the argument not assuming that automobiles are known to contribute to global warming. When that is true then why is the principle that any industry that knows its activities may result in damage is liable for the cost. Is D essentially not saying the same thing as A only in a more convoluted manner where it limits it to the manufacturing industry and states that the damage resulted as a direct result of the product use should make the manufacturing industry liable. A principle is broader than that - It is an idealistic governing statement that states anyone who knows that if their activities result in damage should be liable for the cost of damage.

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

rclague1610 on November 9, 2021

It is unclear whether the company is aware of the damages it is producing, that is the issue with A.

Naryan-Shukle on January 18, 2022

Hi @simi, @rclagur1610,

The issue with A is exactly that; we are never told what the automobile industry ought to have known. If we picked (A), the immediate rebuttal would be that the car manufacturer had no idea it's cars would cause people to need to resettle, which would then absolve them of any responsibility. This is not what the author wants.

Hope this helps!