PrepTest 120, Section 1, Question 17
"Multiple use" refers to the utilization of natural(50 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- ANatural resources should(13 more words not shown)
- BDesignating a wilderness(10 more words not shown)
- CThe present and(16 more words not shown)
- DThe multiple-use philosophy(9 more words not shown)
- EThe multiple-use philosophy(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A wilderness area can still serve people. Perhaps people enjoy the land now while preserving opportunities for future generations. Calling it wilderness doesn't, by itself, make it useless.
But the definition asks whether the combination of uses best meets both present and future needs. When the author says a wilderness area can provide the greatest overall benefit, I want to know what that benefit includes. Does it carry into the future, or are we only considering what helps people today?
What we’re looking for
The conclusion is modest: this designation does not necessarily violate the multiple-use philosophy. We don't have to show that every wilderness designation is ideal or that we should designate more land. For the required-assumption question, look for something the author must be relying on when using overall benefit to defend this possible fit with the philosophy.
Working the answers
- A
This endorses the philosophy as something we should follow. The argument only says a wilderness designation can fit that philosophy. We can determine whether a choice fits a stated standard without first deciding that everyone ought to adopt the standard.
- B
We aren't told that a wilderness designation prevents every possible exploitation of the area's resources. Nor does the reasoning require that absolute result. The issue is whether the designation can provide the relevant overall benefit, not whether every use of a resource becomes impossible.
- C
The argument defends the possibility that a wilderness area fits the philosophy. It doesn't tell us that adding more wilderness areas would best meet everyone's needs. Perhaps some designations work well while further designations would be a mistake. A claim about possible compatibility isn't a recommendation to increase the number.
- DCorrect
This focuses on a different part of “overall benefit” from my initial question about future needs. The author allows a wilderness designation to fit the philosophy even when it doesn't produce the greatest dollar return. That only works if the philosophy counts something besides money.
Suppose financial needs were all that mattered. A use producing less money couldn't be defended merely by pointing to some other benefit. The argument needs room for nonfinancial needs in its assessment. D supplies that room without claiming that money never matters.
- E
Present and future needs both appear in the definition, but they aren't ranked. The argument doesn't need future needs to be more important than present ones. It needs the relevant overall benefit to fit a philosophy that considers both.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.