PrepTest 101, Section 3, Question 25
Economist: In order to decide what to do(92 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the economist's(7 more words not shown)
- Auses evidence that(31 more words not shown)
- Bpresupposes that the(15 more words not shown)
- Ctakes advantage of(11 more words not shown)
- Dgives no reason(21 more words not shown)
- Edoes not directly(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We know what people wouldn't spend. How does that tell us how to calculate what the ozone layer is worth?
I can see why someone deciding how much to spend would want a monetary estimate. The economist says people wouldn't sacrifice all the world's economic resources to protect the ozone layer. Let's grant the proposed upper limit for the sake of following the argument. We still haven't been given a way to calculate a value below it.
The value could be ten billion dollars, twenty billion, or another amount below the limit. The limit doesn't distinguish among them. Knowing that a number is smaller than some ceiling is different from showing that we have a method for finding that number.
What we’re looking for
That's the jump I'd look for in the flaw answer. We don't have to prove the environmentalists right or establish that a calculation is impossible. The economist has claimed that finding an upper limit proves that we can calculate the value, and hasn't explained why that step works.
Working the answers
- A
The first part sounds right: the economist does use a proposed limit on the value of one resource. But the conclusion stays about the ozone layer. It doesn't expand that limit into a claim about every natural resource, such as oceans or forests. A changes the scope of the conclusion.
- B
Putting a value on protection doesn't assume that protection is undesirable. Someone could strongly favor protecting the ozone layer and still want to work out how much to spend. The economist's conclusion concerns whether its monetary value can be calculated, not whether it should be left unprotected.
- C
Both sides are discussing monetary value. The environmentalists deny that it can be calculated; the economist says it can. We aren't given a switch from monetary value to some different meaning, such as beauty or moral importance, that explains away their disagreement. The problem is the inference from an upper limit, not an ambiguous use of the word.
- DCorrect
An upper limit restricts the possible amounts without supplying a calculation of the actual amount or showing how one could be made. The economist gives us no reason that establishing that limit settles the environmentalists' objection. A calculation might still be possible, but this argument hasn't demonstrated that it is.
- E
The economist addresses the exact issue the environmentalists raise: whether the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value. The proposed upper limit is offered as a reason to reject their position. That reason is inadequate, but an unsuccessful response is still a response. E wrongly says the argument doesn't address them.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.