LR Question 4 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Over the last few decades, public outcries against…
QUESTION TYPE: Must Be True
FACTS:
- There are now stricter environmental regulations, thanks to public outcry.
- Cities that had very polluted air 30 years ago have less air pollution.
- This reduction in air pollution wouldn’t have happened without the regulations.
ANALYSIS: We know that air quality in polluted cities improved. This was thanks to the regulations, and those happened due to public protest.
So public protest allowed the reduction in pollution.
The diagram for this question is sort of strange. The statements are more about cause and effect than conditional rules. I couldn’t make an A ➞ B ➞ C diagram, but nonetheless I’m very confident that we can conclude the correct answer.
My rule is that I don’t diagram if it is a lot of effort to make them. Diagrams are just a tool to solve some questions, they’re not the main goal.
___________
- We only know about the cities that had the worst air pollution 30 years ago. We don’t know anything about the most polluted cities today.
- We only know that this is true for the cities that had bad air pollution 30 years ago. Some less polluted cities may have become more polluted.
- We have no idea who complained about air quality.
- Tempting, but it could be that all cities improved their air quality by a similar amount. Also notice that this answer mentions all pollution, while the stimulus focussed on air pollution.
- CORRECT. Public outcry led to the regulations, and the improvement in air quality wouldn’t have been possible without the regulations.
More Resources for Must Be True Questions
- Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements on the LSAT.
- LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
- Intro to Conditional Reasoning: This intro course lesson covers conditional reasoning basics.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Must Be True questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers must be true questions.
Can you explain why choice E must be true and isn’t just most strongly supported? Even though the stimulus says “public outcries against pollution have brought about stricter regulations of emissions,” isn’t it possible that the stricter regulations could have occurred without public outcry, at least in some cities? And if this is the case, we wouldn’t be able to definitively conclude that public outcry led to improvement in the air quality of the cities that were most polluted 30 years ago, because we would only know that in some (but not necessarily all) cities, public outcry led to improved air quality.
I feel like I might be thinking about this the wrong way and would love any clarification. Thanks!
Just to add on to my response to your last comment about MBT, I’d say this question is an example where diagramming isn’t necessary! So it all comes down to how complex the stimulus is, whether there are conditional relationships that need to be clarified, and your own intuition and understanding of the stimulus.
However, there is indeed a causal chain here, so you might find writing this chain out helpful. We are told the three facts that Graeme summarizes in this explanation. This creates the causal chain (that applies to the cities with the most polluted air 30 years ago):
Public outcries -> stricter regulations -> improved air quality.
The reason we know that this is a causal chain is because the stimulus explicitly says public outcries caused stricter regulations, and that the improvement in air quality would not have happened without the stricter regulations.
So what E says isn’t just strongly supported, it must be true. Public criticism caused the regulations, and the regulations caused the improvement in air quality. The stimulus also explicitly ties stricter regulations to the cities that had the most polluted air 30 years ago. Yes, they don’t use the word “all” cities but they don’t have to. Both the stimulus and E refer to “the cities that had the most polluted air 30 years ago”. So they’re both referring to the same category of cities.
You must take the facts in MBT questions as 100% true. If it says public outcries caused stricter regulations, it is unhelpful to speculate whether this applies to all cities or not. You have to accept that it applies to the category of the cities that the stimulus says it does, and then infer which of the answer choices must also be true.
Hope that helps clear it up! Let me know if you have further questions.