PrepTest 151, Section 3, Question 4
There are only two possible reasons that it(70 more words not shown)
The conclusion drawn above follows(9 more words not shown)
- AMining creates less(6 more words not shown)
- BThere are no(3 more words not shown)
- CThe economic benefits(8 more words not shown)
- DIt is technologically(7 more words not shown)
- EThe more complex(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about the Martian ecosystem?
We're given only two possible reasons that a polluting activity would be wrong: harm to an ecosystem or harm to people. For this argument, accept that list. We don't need to settle every possible moral objection to mining; we need to see whether the author has dealt with both stated reasons.
The protected human population takes care of one. The miners would suffer no harm from the Martian environment. But that doesn't tell us whether pollution would harm an ecosystem around them. Protecting people isn't the same as protecting everything else.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. Remove the remaining problem. If there is no ecosystem on Mars, there is no ecosystem for the mining to damage. Together with the protection of the humans, that would rule out both of the reasons the argument allows.
Working the answers
- A
Less pollution than another activity could still be harmful pollution. We aren't comparing mining with other human activities to choose the least damaging one. We need to rule out the specified reasons this Martian mining would be wrong.
- BCorrect
With no ecosystem on Mars, the mining cannot harm a Martian ecosystem. The passage already rules out harm to the humans there. Since it says these are the only possible grounds for judging a polluting activity wrong, eliminating both allows the conclusion. B supplies the missing half of the reasoning; it isn't something we should assume as background knowledge about Mars.
- C
An economic benefit doesn't establish that neither an ecosystem nor people would be harmed. The argument's stated grounds for wrongness don't include a rule saying profits cancel out those harms. C gives us a cost-benefit comparison without filling the ecosystem gap.
- D
Being able to do something doesn't show that doing it is right. Mining could be technologically possible and still harm an ecosystem. We need to settle whether one of the two stated objections applies, not whether engineers can carry out the operation.
- E
Ranking ecosystems by complexity doesn't tell us that there is none on Mars or that the mining would leave one unharmed. Even a relatively simple ecosystem could be valuable under the premise. Its having less value than another ecosystem wouldn't remove the stated reason to avoid harming it.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.