Q25

[KellyB15]

Hi!

So I'm not really sure why the answer is E? In the text they mention CFCs break down into different constituents, including chlorine. The passage goes on to say that the resulting increase in Cl in the stratosphere is "devastating" to the ozone but I don't see how the use of "devastating" corresponds to "most damaging" in the answer.

For example, going out and parting the night before my LSAT would have devastating effects on my test performance but is that necessarily the most damaging thing I could do? No, I could jump off a cliff and not show up at all (tempting ). So then I thought maybe I technically have the definition of "devastating" wrong (like how many people use travesty to mean tragedy) but it just says "highly/very destructive" - nothing that indicates a paramount level of destruction, in my opinion.

Because the passage concerns CFCs and how they damage ozone, and since only chlorine is mentioned, am I supposed to assume that they're the worst?

While I read this I just thought the scope was centered around chlorine. Sure, they're may be other constituents that are really bad too, but this passage is just about chlorine.

I'd love to hear someone else's thoughts/comments on it!

Thanks!!

[ohthatpatrick]

It seems like you're asking about Q23, but you created a thread for Q25.

There's already a thread for Q23, if you want to check that one out
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... tml#p52909

[JohnD194]

I got this right but wondering why A and B are wrong.

Isn't B supported in line 1-3? Excessive seems strong though, so that's why I chose D. A supported 13-15 though? Says the ozone supposed to remains stable over time with little destruction balanced with little strenthening?

[ohthatpatrick]

Sorry for the delayed response. THANK YOU for providing the lines you wanted to use to support those answers.

Both of these answers are wrong for the #1 reason answers on LSAT are wrong:
they contain wording that is too strong or specific

(B) says that UV light is the #1 cause of skin cancer, because saying skin cancer occurs primarily from UV means that UV is the MOST common cause.

Nothing in lines 1-3 say that.

I could say that "By 10am this morning, it was well established that huffing glue contributes to lung cancer", but that wouldn't mean that I'm saying "huffing glue is the #1 cause of lung cancer"

(A) says that little or no destruction occurs unless chlorine is there.

This is really just trying to an illegal negation of what we know.

WE KNOW:
if chlorine is there, much destruction will be done

THIS IS TRYING TO APPEAL TO OUR BRAIN BY SAYING:
if chlorine isn't there, not much destruction is done

The line you quoted is exactly the right place to look -- it says that destruction and production balance out. It doesn't in any way give us a sense of how much destruction / production takes place.

Maybe every year 2% of the ozone layer is destroyed but then about 2%'s worth of ozone is also created.
Maybe every year 30% of the ozone layer is destroyed but about 30%'s worth of ozone is also created.

Either of those scenarios is consistent with the idea that destruction and production balance out.

Hope this helps.

[JakeK382]

Why is D correct? The passage says in lines 36-41 that even if the production of CFCs was stopped immediately, the ozone layer would continue to break down for years. If CFCs cause ozone depletion, which allows more damaging UV light, which contributes more to skin cancer, then even if the production of CFCs was to stop immediately, the incidence of skin cancer would continue to increase for years. And after the accumulation of CFCs in the atmosphere reached zero, the ozone would remain stable (i.e. not replenish itself to pre-CFC levels) at that level since natural ozone production and destruction are in equilibrium (11-14). Therefore, the only influence that regulating the use of CFCs should have on skin cancer is that it lowers the rate at which incidence of skin cancer is increasing.

I answered E because the passage mentions a hole in the ozone over Antartica (53). I can see why this answer would be a bit of a stretch (maybe the ozone over Antartica is naturally thinner than the rest of the world) but it still seems like a better answer than D.