Q27

[huskybins]

I once thought the original text "more environmentally friendly ...chemicals" in line 60 means the released gas becoming LESS damaging to the environment as what E suggests -- I admit "LESS" is my intentional addition but I would think it is reasonable to interpret "more environmentally friendly" as "less damaging" and therefore still somewhat damaging, especially further in lines 55-56 "(Montreal protocol) ... ban the production of ozone-depleting gases" which seems evidently to eliminate the correct answer B, which in turn corroborates my belief that E looks more correct than ever. Of course, it turns out that I am wrong. So hope to hear guru's advice! Much appreciated!!

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Infer Information

Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
No keywords in the question stem.

Any prephrase?
On a 1st pass, I'm expecting to see some answers with big red flags, in the form of extreme/specific/comparative/out of scope language.

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:

(A) "NONE" other than CFC's?

(B) Fewer = comparative, but this seems to fit the gist that we after 1987 we addressed the problem with more "environmentally friendly" chemicals (55-60).

(C) "MOST" energy-efficient means?

(D) "CESSATION" = it totally stopped?

(E) Do we have anything about MANUFACTURED TODAY or KNOWN TO BE DAMAGING?

Takeaway/Pattern: This is testing us on whether we understood the science-y part of what was environmentally damaging about CFCs: the fact that they let chlorine into the upper atmosphere, where it wreaks havoc with ozone.

#officialexplanation

[huskybins]

Hi Patrick,

Thanks a lot for your help and I read thru your explanation. However, just wonder if B is correct, then E should also be correct: B is talking of FEWER chlorine released into the air, which means probably non-zero chlorine (although much less than before) still being released into the air anyway. And per the passage, we all know chlorine reacts with ozone molecules and therefore damages the ozone layer in stratopshere. So B basically means refrigerators are still releasing chemicals DAMAGING to our environment -- which is exactly what E means -- unless "substitutes for CFC" mentioned in B is NOT MANUFACTURED as stated in E (but how can we know whether such substitutes are NOT manufactured based on the passage?) -- If that is the only difference between those two answers, I would be amazed at how devious a question can be contemplated to make!

Still, personally I think it is too equivocal to infer that "more environmentally friendly ...chemicals" means "fewer chlorine" -- IMHO, it could also mean some alternative solution such as developing some new substitutes fully replacing CFC without releasing any chlorine at all. Although I understand it could be a common sense knowledge in our daily life to assume chlorine still being used, but we are asked to find something mostly supported from the passage only, aren't we?

Thanks again for your reply!

Question Type:
Infer Information

Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
No keywords in the question stem.

Any prephrase?
On a 1st pass, I'm expecting to see some answers with big red flags, in the form of extreme/specific/comparative/out of scope language.

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:

(A) "NONE" other than CFC's?

(B) Fewer = comparative, but this seems to fit the gist that we after 1987 we addressed the problem with more "environmentally friendly" chemicals (55-60).

(C) "MOST" energy-efficient means?

(D) "CESSATION" = it totally stopped?

(E) Do we have anything about MANUFACTURED TODAY or KNOWN TO BE DAMAGING?

Takeaway/Pattern: This is testing us on whether we understood the science-y part of what was environmentally damaging about CFCs: the fact that they let chlorine into the upper atmosphere, where it wreaks havoc with ozone.

#officialexplanation

[andrewgong01]

huskybins, I was confused between A and E but I don't think it hinged on the developed as substitutes part. I think it hinged more so on what the text said and what E said. When stuck between the two choices, I think the strategy guide said to compare it to the text than compare the choices to each other but someone else posted on here to compare between the last two choices, find the difference between the two choices and then appeal to the text to see which side the difference supports.

The final sentence of the text said "more eco friendly chemicals" (not word for word quoted) have been developed since the legislation took effect. However, more environmentally friendly does not mean, in the LSAT world I think, environmentally damaging. It sounds like it is implying it is damaging but eco-friendliness is a spectrum from bad to good and not a black and white bi-polar scale. Put slightly differently, the passage never said what we are doing is still damaging, it just said what we are doing is better -- better could mean we are still doing known or unknown harm or we are no longer doing any more harm.

I think the other part of "E" that makes is wrong is that it said "known". The passage never said known.

Now if we compare "B" to the final sentence "B" fits a bit better because B implies what we are doing now seems to be better and cleaner because we are emitting less chlorine into the sky. That fits much better into saying we are being "more environmentally friendly" than what E was trying to say in regards to the last sentence; namely, more environmental chemicals are being emitted is the same as are still producing known chemicals to be damaging. To me this question may have hinged on which is better to fit into the last sentence than working wrong to right to rule out "E" more definitively

Regarding your other point, if we are emitting 0 chlorine now , that still conforms with "B" , we are emitting fewer chlorine now. We used to emit 100 units of chlorine and now we emit 0, that is still fewer since 0 is less than 100.

Not sure if what I wrote is the correct distinction though but that was my thought process

Also, I am not sure what "A" says. A makes it sound like CFC are a subset of refrigerants whereas I thought the reverse was true.

[huskybins]

Thanks for your reply Andrew. And I appreciate your offering of your thought on how to tackle this question effectively. Still, forgive my stubbornness that nowhere can we conclude from the passage that the improved refrigerator emitting "FEWER chlorine" means they emit "ZERO" chlorine. Chances are very likely they emit non-zero chlorine although much less now than before. Hence, given the information in the passage that even one single chlorine atom entering o-zone can wipe out 1 million ozone molecules, I don't believe B means "NO DAMAGE" at all to the o-zone layer after the improvement. Therefore, if B is most strongly supported then why can't E be acceptable?

huskybins, I was confused between A and E but I don't think it hinged on the developed as substitutes part. I think it hinged more so on what the text said and what E said. When stuck between the two choices, I think the strategy guide said to compare it to the text than compare the choices to each other but someone else posted on here to compare between the last two choices, find the difference between the two choices and then appeal to the text to see which side the difference supports.

The final sentence of the text said "more eco friendly chemicals" (not word for word quoted) have been developed since the legislation took effect. However, more environmentally friendly does not mean, in the LSAT world I think, environmentally damaging. It sounds like it is implying it is damaging but eco-friendliness is a spectrum from bad to good and not a black and white bi-polar scale. Put slightly differently, the passage never said what we are doing is still damaging, it just said what we are doing is better -- better could mean we are still doing known or unknown harm or we are no longer doing any more harm.

I think the other part of "E" that makes is wrong is that it said "known". The passage never said known.

Now if we compare "B" to the final sentence "B" fits a bit better because B implies what we are doing now seems to be better and cleaner because we are emitting less chlorine into the sky. That fits much better into saying we are being "more environmentally friendly" than what E was trying to say in regards to the last sentence; namely, more environmental chemicals are being emitted is the same as are still producing known chemicals to be damaging. To me this question may have hinged on which is better to fit into the last sentence than working wrong to right to rule out "E" more definitively

Regarding your other point, if we are emitting 0 chlorine now , that still conforms with "B" , we are emitting fewer chlorine now. We used to emit 100 units of chlorine and now we emit 0, that is still fewer since 0 is less than 100.

Not sure if what I wrote is the correct distinction though but that was my thought process

Also, I am not sure what "A" says. A makes it sound like CFC are a subset of refrigerants whereas I thought the reverse was true.