Q4 - chemical company employee

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Our company releases more pollutants than most similarly sized ones.
Evidence: A study showed that collectively, our company and four others, accounted for 60% of the pollution caused by an overall group of 30 companies.

Answer Anticipation:
How could the author's company be in that group that accounts for 60% of pollutants, but NOT release more pollutants than most companies?

If we think about the fact that the remaining 25 companies account for 40% of the pollutants, those companies are averaging about 1.5% of the pollutants per company. How could we say that our author's company is on that same level?

We would just say, "Hey, WE only account for 1.5% of the pollutants too. This study just randomly lumped us in with Brown River Chemicals, which by itself accounts for 56% of the pollutants." In other words, it's not like they told us that the author's company is part of the top 5. I could put four homeless people in a group of five with Bill Gates and tell you that their collective net work was $60 billion, but that doesn't imply that everyone in that quintet is rich.

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) The author might well believe that the conservation group IS hostile. Who cares? She's just looking at the study's finding and feeling like her company is causing a disproportionate share of the pollutants.

(B) This is getting too specific about HOW this company would be overcontributing to pollutants: it wouldn't matter to the author whether the company's share of the pollution came from greater volume of chemicals or from using chemicals whose processing is inherently more polluting.

(C) This conclusion is only about comparing the author's company to OTHER SMALL chemical companies. "Large" companies are out of scope.

(D) YES! What if the author's is still around 1.5% like the other 25 companies, and it's just the other four in the author's group that are driving it up to 60%? If we negate this answer, it tells us that the author's company is contributing roughly the same as the other 25 chemical companies in the study.

(E) Too strong. It doesn't matter if there's significant variation. If the author thinks that her company is "evenly" responsible for her group's 60%, she thinks her company accounts for about 12% of the pollution, while the average for the other 25 companies is around 1.5%. There's no way, using significant variation, to make it so that her company's 12% would be a lower number than that of most of the 30 companies.

Takeaway/Pattern: Very goofy mathy stuff here. This is one of LSAT's "curiously phrased statistics". If you're ever thinking, "THAT was a weird way to phrase that statistic", then they are probably testing the wording. This statistic SOUNDS like it's saying "the top 5 are responsible for 60%", but we have no indication they're the top 5.

#officialexplanation

[shiqi0628]

i got the question right under time pressure but when i was reviewing it i stuck btw D & E.


D:negate this would makes it possible that the chemical company we are talking about accounts for just a normal share of the pollutant while the other monster four take the majority, then of course the company i question would not necessarily produce more pollutant than the majority.


E: Negate it:even if there is a significant quantity variation, my first thought is it still needs assumption that the other monster company who might account for 35% in the other group, but how do i know if my company accounts how large a share in the 60% group? then it still need extra work,eliminate it.
but then i realize if the pther group do have a significant variation, itatually strengthen the argument, one monster company and other 23 companies share the 1%,actually the 23companied constitutes the "majority". then its even more likely MY company creats more chemical pollutant than the majority without even considering my share in the 60%. what a entertaining question!

any thought?

[mjacob0511]

The argument provides data. Five out of thirty companies together account for 60% of the pollutants being released. The argument concludes by saying that this company (one of the five) releases more pollutants than most chemical companies similar to them in size (they are all small companies).

(A) Whether the study group is hostile to the company is irrelevant. It would not undermine the conclusion of the employee.
(B) This company can produce whatever chemicals they want. Maybe some of their chemicals naturally produce more pollutants, but that can't account for percentages. For example their chemical "1" produces more pollutants, and the other small companies make chemical "2" which pollutes less naturally, but maybe this company is producing less in total to make up for it.
(C) Large companies are out of scope.
(D) Perfect answer. The argument said that five companies account for 60% but maybe one is a non factor. If they want they can include another three companies that barely pollute and say 8 companies account for 60%. Now if this company is only responsible for 1% of the pollution, then many of the remaining 25 companies could be polluting the same or more.
(E) There could be a significant amount of variation. Lets break the 60% down into 12% for each of the companies. And the remaining 40% is split up between the other 25 companies with some polluting .1% and some up 5%. The employee is still right that his company is polluting more than most other companies.

[maryadkins]

Thank you for this explanation! Yes, well done. Good analysis.