PrepTest 131, Section 1, Question 7
Global ecological problems reduce to the problem of(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ASupply and demand(8 more words not shown)
- BIt is possible(9 more words not shown)
- CActual human demand(5 more words not shown)
- DIt is never(12 more words not shown)
- EHuman consumption does(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
There is only so much the earth can supply, while people can keep wanting more. I can see how that could create ecological problems. Thinking in terms of supply and demand helps connect human wants with the resources available to satisfy them.
But must every solution reduce demand? What about increasing the available supply? There is a limit to how much wood the earth can produce, but perhaps we could plant more forests and produce more than we do now. A ceiling on supply does not automatically mean we are already at that ceiling. Looking for resources beyond Earth would raise a similar question about the limits of the proposed solution.
What we’re looking for
For this assumption question, my initial concern is whether the argument has ruled out expanding the supply. The author says reducing current demand is required, so I want to examine what must be true for that insistence to make sense.
Working the answers
- A
The author does not need supply and demand to balance themselves eventually. A self-correcting balance in the distant future would not establish what we must do to address the current problems. The argument concerns a required response, not a prediction that everything will work itself out.
- B
We might recognize a problem and reduce consumption without being able to calculate the earth's exact sustainable supply. Knowing precisely where the limit lies is different from there being a limit. The argument does not depend on our ability to determine that number.
- CCorrect
This points to a more basic distinction than my initial concern: potential demand is not actual demand. People could want more and more without currently demanding more than the earth can sustainably provide.
If actual demand were already within the sustainable supply, why would solving the described imbalance require cutting it? The author needs current demand to exceed that supply. C supplies that necessary starting point. It does not settle every possible question about expanding supply, but it identifies something the argument must assume about the present situation.
- D
Saying balance can never be achieved is much stronger than saying achieving it requires less demand. The author can think a solution is possible if people reduce their demands. Permanent impossibility is not an assumption needed to recommend a required change.
- E
Human consumption could reduce the environmental supply, which would make balancing consumption and supply more difficult. The argument can still call for reduced demand in that situation. It does not require consumption to leave supply untouched.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.