PrepTest 111, Section 1, Question 18
The current pattern of human consumption of resources,(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AThere are renewable(11 more words not shown)
- BWe cannot indefinitely(8 more words not shown)
- CA renewable resource(6 more words not shown)
- DConsumption of nonrenewable(10 more words not shown)
- EUltimately we cannot(4 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
“Eventually” leaves the timing wide open. The argument doesn't tell us whether the change would be needed soon or far into the future.
My first thought is whether people could change their consumption: use less, recycle more or find a more sustainable pattern. But notice that changing the pattern may already be consistent with the author's conclusion. The claim is that our current reliance on nonrenewable resources cannot go on indefinitely, not that a particular policy must begin tomorrow. Simply proposing a change doesn't refute the need to change.
What we’re looking for
The argument points to the limited supply of metal ore and concludes that we must ultimately do without it or turn to renewable resources. The assumption question asks what that reasoning needs. We shouldn't turn a possible solution into a requirement or demand facts about the near future. We need to test whether the author's account really rules out continuing the kind of reliance being criticized.
Working the answers
- A
The argument allows two eventual responses: find a renewable replacement or do without. If some resources have no renewable replacement, doing without could still be the outcome. So the author doesn't need a replacement for every nonrenewable resource. The word “all” isn't wrong on its own; it is wrong here because the reasoning doesn't require that universal availability.
- BCorrect
What if we could keep moving from one nonrenewable resource to another forever? Running out of one particular ore wouldn't force us to abandon dependence on nonrenewable resources. We could replace it with another, replace that one when it ran out, and continue the sequence.
Imagine starting with 50 units of one resource, switching to a different finite resource after using those up, then switching again. The question isn't whether any individual supply lasts forever. It's whether this replacement process could last forever. If it could, the author's two stated outcomes wouldn't be unavoidable.
B closes that route. It says we cannot indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable ones. That is a more specific gap than my first thought about changing consumption, and it explains why finite individual supplies must eventually force a change away from this overall pattern.
- C
The conclusion doesn't require a guarantee that human use could never exhaust a renewable resource. It says our reliance on nonrenewable resources must change. Whether a particular replacement would also need careful management is a further question. The argument can be right about the current pattern without promising that every renewable supply is impossible to deplete.
- D
Consumption could increase in the near future and the argument could still hold. In fact, faster use could make the limited supply run out sooner. The conclusion concerns an eventual change, so it doesn't need this particular short-term forecast about consumption.
- E
The author expressly includes doing without among the possibilities. The reasoning doesn't need a claim that this is impossible. Perhaps people will find replacements, or perhaps they will stop using a resource without replacing it. The conclusion can stand without E's insistence that nonrenewables remain indispensable.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.