PrepTest 120, Section 3, Question 10
Naturalist: To be dependable, the accounting framework used(37 more words not shown)
The naturalist's statements, if true,(8 more words not shown)
- AEconomists' indifference toward(12 more words not shown)
- BNaturalists and economists(7 more words not shown)
- CThe accounting framework(7 more words not shown)
- DNatural resources are(7 more words not shown)
- EChanges in the(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An accounting system that leaves out assets fails the requirement we've just been given. To trust the framework, the naturalist says, it must account for all of the nation's assets. Government-owned natural resources count as assets, but the current framework assigns them no value. That's the missing piece. The framework doesn't meet the stated requirement for being dependable.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what is most strongly supported. My prediction is straightforward: this accounting framework isn't dependable. Look for that idea, including an ordinary synonym, rather than a broader claim about the environment or all economists.
Working the answers
- A
We haven't been told that economists are indifferent to destroying natural resources. Nor have we been given particular policy decisions or their outcomes. A turns a criticism of an accounting framework into a claim about people's attitudes and the bad decisions those attitudes will cause. Neither step is established.
- B
Using the framework doesn't prove that the economists agree with every feature of it. Perhaps department policy requires them to use a system they think undervalues natural resources. Assigning no value within that system also isn't necessarily a declaration that those resources have no value at all.
There is a second expansion: these national economists aren't necessarily representative of all economists. The naturalist thinks the resources are assets, but we cannot infer the broad disagreement B describes merely from the system currently being used.
- CCorrect
“Reliable” conveys the same idea as “dependable” here. The framework must account for all assets to qualify, and it fails to account for the value of a stated class of assets. It therefore fails the requirement. We should notice wording changes, but this one preserves the meaning rather than changing the argument.
- D
Calling something an asset doesn't establish that it is vital. The answer also extends the claim from this nation to every nation. We have neither the importance judgment nor the worldwide comparison D requires.
- E
This moves from natural resources to changes in the environment and from one current framework to every accounting framework. Another framework might represent values that this one leaves out. A defect in the system under discussion doesn't establish that no system can account for them.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.