PrepTest 106, Section 3, Question 8
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AIt is economically(7 more words not shown)
- BSome environmentalists appeal(14 more words not shown)
- CMost environmentalists appeal(13 more words not shown)
- DMany environmentalists provide(14 more words not shown)
- EEven if there(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Using a resource isn't necessarily the same as destroying it. If a forest disappears, it cannot keep providing benefits, but that concern might support careful use rather than no use at all. I would want to know what sort of exploitation the environmentalists have in mind.
Then the passage describes a different argument. Many environmentalists say nature has value in itself, so destruction would be wrong even if preserving it came with greater economic costs. Imagine a forest whose destruction would bring a large financial gain. These environmentalists could still oppose it because the forest matters to them apart from the money.
What we’re looking for
That tells us what they believe. It doesn't establish that their judgment is correct. I might question the judgment, but the inference question asks what follows from the account we've been given. I don't see a need to force these views into one precise prediction; we'll check the choices against what the environmentalists actually say.
Working the answers
- A
This states an economic judgment as fact. The passage reports that some environmentalists question the prudence of exploitation; it doesn't establish that their position is correct. We cannot turn a report of their argument into proof of its conclusion.
- BCorrect
The appeal to nature's intrinsic value is a reason apart from economic gain or loss. The second sentence tells us that many environmentalists use that reason to oppose destruction, even when the economic comparison favors it. That establishes that some appeal to a noneconomic justification.
We don't need to combine every part of the passage into one larger theory. The reported position in the second sentence directly supports this limited description of their reasoning.
- C
“Some” environmentalists raise the economic concern. We aren't told that most do. The passage gives us no count showing that the economic argument represents a majority, so C expands the stated group without support.
- D
Using a noneconomic justification doesn't mean using only that justification. The same environmentalist could care about nature's intrinsic value and also offer economic reasons for preserving it. Nothing says the groups or their reasons are mutually exclusive.
- E
A justification being offered is different from its being sound. The passage reports the intrinsic-value argument without establishing that it is correct. E endorses a conclusion that the passage attributes to environmentalists. B simply identifies the kind of reason some of them use.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.