PrepTest 153, Section 2, Question 9
Ellen: A group of economists and ecologists recently(67 more words not shown)
On the basis of their(22 more words not shown)
- AEstimating the dollar(23 more words not shown)
- BThe biosphere's most(14 more words not shown)
- CCalculating the dollar(24 more words not shown)
- DThe idea that(14 more words not shown)
- ECalculating the dollar(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why put a price on something we need to live?
That is my first reaction to the estimate. If we need water to survive, why not use that as the reason to protect it? I'd also want to know what assumptions went into the calculation. But the stated $33 trillion is an annual estimate of the biosphere's essential services, not a sale price for the planet.
Ellen uses that large economic value to support making protection a high priority. Santiago's response is more specific than our initial questions about the number. He is uncomfortable with using a dollar value to justify protection because of what that approach suggests about the biosphere's importance.
What we’re looking for
He has not said that protection should be a low priority. The disagreement concerns the reason for making it a high priority. I'd predict an answer about whether this economic valuation is an appropriate justification.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Ellen treats the dollar estimate as a reason to prioritize protection: these services have enormous economic value, so we should protect the biosphere. Santiago objects to using that kind of reason. He thinks it carries an objectionable implication about where the biosphere's value lies. We can identify both sides of the disagreement without assuming that they disagree about protecting the biosphere itself.
- B
Ellen never ranks the biosphere's sources of value. She could think its greatest value lies elsewhere and still consider its economic services a useful reason for protecting it. Santiago's objection does not establish that Ellen holds the opposite view on what is most important.
- C
An argument can be effective at persuading people while still being inappropriate. Santiago objects to the justification, not to its persuasive success. Ellen also does not claim that dollar calculations are the most effective possible way to create urgency. We lack the two opposing positions C requires.
- D
This resembles our initial question about how the number was calculated, but it is not Santiago's stated objection. He does not say that accurate calculation is impossible. He could accept the estimate and still object to using it as the rationale for protection.
- E
Santiago says the calculation carries this implication, but Ellen does not address that implication. She might deny it, or she might agree and be comfortable with it. We cannot assign her a denial just because Santiago objects. A captures the disagreement we actually have: whether using the estimate this way is appropriate.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.