medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Speaker A: The proposed legislation to tax carbon emissions will undoubtedly hurt the economy. Businesses will pass these costs to consumers, leading to inflation and decreased spending. Speaker B: But we must consider the long-term economic costs of inaction on climate change, such as infrastructure damage from extreme weather. Investing in green energy now will create millions of new jobs that offset any initial losses.
Speaker A and Speaker B are most likely to disagree about which one of the following?
- Whether building out green energy is the single most effective tool available for cutting carbon emissions.
- Whether a carbon tax would have any effect at all on the prices businesses charge consumers.
- Whether climate change poses a serious danger to the nation's infrastructure.
- Whether, taken on the whole, the carbon tax would leave the economy better or worse off.
- Whether protecting the economy should always take priority over protecting the environment.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ