PrepTest 119, Section 1, Question 3
Economists have long defined prosperity in terms of(440 more words not shown)
Based on the information in(25 more words not shown)
- AParadoxically, the weakening(13 more words not shown)
- BThe environmental effects(13 more words not shown)
- CThe appearance of(13 more words not shown)
- DThis problem should(11 more words not shown)
- EThis problem has(15 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
The ozone example shows spending going up while conditions get worse. Buying more protection from sunlight doesn't turn a weakened ozone layer into a benefit. I expect an answer saying the problem threatens real prosperity despite the extra economic activity.
Working the answers
- A
This reverses the point. Environmental health and quality of life decline; sales of protective products may rise.
- B
We aren't told which effects occur faster. The comparison concerns what the effects mean, not their relative speed.
- C
The appearance of prosperity is part of the example. But the additional claim—that it has diverted attention from solving the problem—isn't stated. Recognizing the first half doesn't give us support for the second.
- DCorrect
The writer calls this a “troubling” reduction in environmental health and quality of life. It threatens the broader prosperity we care about, even though the economists' measure could count the resulting purchases as an improvement.
- E
Economists' failure to recognize the problem isn't identified as a cause of ozone depletion. Criticizing their measure is different from blaming them for the environmental damage.
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.