PrepTest 116, Section 2, Question 16
Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in regions(48 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- ARegions of natural(21 more words not shown)
- BThe economies of(21 more words not shown)
- CIf governmentally mandated(18 more words not shown)
- DVoluntary environmental protection(15 more words not shown)
- EA factor harmful(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A pretty place can attract people, and more people can attract businesses. I can follow that part. But will the new business make up for the damage to the old industries?
Imagine the region depends on an industry that the new environmental rules would seriously harm. Protecting the scenery might bring in residents and shops while still leaving the region worse off economically. We need to compare what the region gains with what it loses. A benefit on one side doesn't settle the overall result.
What we’re looking for
The environmentalist is careful, though: these protections can help the economy. The claim isn't that every region benefits or that every protection is worth its cost. For this necessary-assumption question, I'd predict that the benefits can sometimes outweigh the harm to the older industries. That would defend the possibility the environmentalist is proposing. Let's see whether the answers address that comparison or another part of the reasoning.
Working the answers
- A
This says the protections would stop the area from being beautiful enough to attract residents. That cuts against the environmentalist's proposed benefit. The argument needs environmental protection to be compatible with attracting people and businesses; it doesn't depend on the protection making that attraction disappear.
- B
This is tempting because it addresses our concern about the importance of the old industries. But most regions is too much to require. The conclusion says these protections can help. Even if most regions depend heavily on industries the rules would harm, some other regions could still benefit overall.
Also, depending heavily on an industry doesn't by itself prove that any harm to it outweighs all possible gains. We need to watch the actual claim instead of accepting anything that sounds relevant to our objection.
- C
The argument describes a way environmental protection can help: attracting residents and then businesses. It doesn't need that to be the primary way protection helps whenever it helps. Another region might benefit mainly through a different route. That wouldn't destroy the possibility described here.
- D
We don't need mandatory protection to outperform voluntary protection. Both could help equally, or voluntary protection could help more, while government rules still helped a region's economy. This comparison doesn't have to be settled for the conclusion to stand.
- ECorrect
This checks whether the proposed source of new business remains available. A rule can hurt an older industry without necessarily discouraging other businesses from moving in. Otherwise, the argument would be relying on an economic benefit that the protection itself blocks.
Don't invent a timeline in which all the new businesses have already arrived before the rules take effect. The argument doesn't give us that sequence. It proposes protection as something that can help maintain the attraction and bring economic benefits. The harm to old industry therefore must be compatible with other businesses relocating there. E doesn't prove that the gains outweigh the losses; it preserves a possibility the reasoning needs.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.