December 2015 LSAT Section 4 Question 26

All oceangoing ships carry seawater ballast tanks whose weight improves stability. To maintain the ship's proper stab...

AndrewArabie on March 15, 2023

How do you negate C and why is it wrong. The explanation provided isn't helping me.

When reading this argument I had three problems. 1. Whose to say the decomposing coastal creatures deposited mid ocean won't in some way harm the ecosystem there? 2. If you're a ship captain loading your ship with cargo, your ballast tanks have been emptied to maintain stability then you set off. When you get to your next port, in preparation for the loss of weight, you fill your ballast tanks. Both of these things have to be done at port because the ballast tanks must be empty while the ship is at sea which is also when it is full of cargo. So doing this process in transit just sounds absurd. 3. I anticipated E exactly. When I got to the ACs, I was between C and E but ultimately chose C because the argument is predicated on not harming sea life so C seems more relevant. I recognize the necessity of E but I don't understand how C is not necessary as well. I also don't know how to negate it. To me C is saying "Creatures that do not survive in an environment generally cannot harm it." To me, that seems perfectly necessary for this argument to work. How do I negate C and why isn't it necessary?

Replies

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

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on March 19, 2023

I certainly see the issue here, C looks quite attractive, and while E is clearly necessary, it feels almost pedantic.

I think it boils down to how we interpret C, and my take is that it is much stronger than the actual necessary assumption that you covered in your first anticipation. I would read C to mean that "creatures that don't survive after being deposited by oceangoing ships rarely wreak havoc.

The reason this is not a necessary assumption is that the author could think anything about other sea creatures that were not transported by ocean going ships. Let's try to negation of how I rephrased C. I would probably say that to negate: creatures that were not transported by ocean going ships and survived their voyage can indeed wreak havoc.

While it is necessary the author agrees they need to survive, they no not need to agree with the ocean going ships. Maybe a riverine ship transported the creatures, or an airplane, or industrial run off.

This boils down to C having two conditions: survive and oceangoing ship. I think your rephrase only focused on the survive element.

AndrewArabie on March 20, 2023

Thank you Emil. I see what you mean.