Free LSAT Practice Question

Question 1 of 1
ID: LSAT-LR-44
Section: Logical Reasoning
Topic: Inference
Difficulty level: Medium

Practice Mode: Single selected Question » Back to Overview

Environmental economist Sheila Yu argues that because large-scale iron fertilization of the oceans could stimulate plankton blooms that remove vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the practice would certainly benefit the planet despite its high implementation cost. The marine biologist Mary Anderson argues that Yu's case is not persuasive, however, because she fails to consider that iron fertilization might trigger severe disruptions to marine ecosystems that could ultimately harm Earth’s climate and biodiversity more than help them.

Which one of the following most accurately states the conclusion of the marine biologist's argument?

AYu's position wrongly assumes that iron fertilization will in fact lead to substantial long-term carbon removal.

BLarge-scale iron fertilization might end up damaging marine ecosystems more than it helps reduce atmospheric carbon.

CBecause of its potential ecological risks, ocean-fertilization research should not be funded.

DYu's claim that iron fertilization would certainly benefit the planet is overstated.

EYu's argument is unconvincing because it overlooks possible harmful consequences of large-scale iron fertilization.

» Quit