PrepTest 119, Section 1, Question 2
Economists have long defined prosperity in terms of(440 more words not shown)
The example in the passage(27 more words not shown)
- AHarvest limitations have(11 more words not shown)
- BHarvest limitations should(13 more words not shown)
- CThe advantages to(15 more words not shown)
- DCommunities protest harvest(14 more words not shown)
- EIt is the(16 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
The residents seem to value living near the forest enough to give up higher wages elsewhere. Yet they oppose restrictions intended to protect that setting. My first reaction is that their choices don't line up.
What we’re looking for
But this question asks what the critics would agree with, so we need a claim their argument actually supports, rather than a sweeping judgment about why people behave irrationally.
Working the answers
- A
The critics don't deny that limiting timber harvests could affect wages or jobs. They argue that protecting the land is worth the cost.
- B
No requirement of wide public support is stated. The critics favor these limits even though residents have protested them.
- CCorrect
The critics conclude that the community will “lose much more” if the limits aren't implemented. In other words, protecting the land offers benefits that outweigh the costs of restricting the harvest. That is the specific comparison behind their criticism of the residents' position.
- D
This claims to know the main reason communities protest: they don't understand the long-term monetary effects. We aren't given enough to identify their primary motive, and one example doesn't establish that general explanation.
- E
Adopting a view similar to the economists' doesn't mean residents formed their opinions by listening to economists' arguments. That causal influence isn't stated.
More Author's Opinion questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Author's Opinion questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.