PrepTest 153, Section 3, Question 20
Business owner: Although allowing coal mining in our(46 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(24 more words not shown)
- AIt is given(15 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(14 more words not shown)
- CIt is an(11 more words not shown)
- DIt is the(6 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A mine creates jobs, yet the total number of jobs goes down? That could happen, but something else must be lost. Perhaps people would move away because they didn't want to live near the mining activity. I want to know which existing jobs the owner thinks would disappear.
The answer is businesses that depend on natural beauty. Imagine a hotel attracting visitors to enjoy the forests and rivers, or a coffee shop serving those visitors. Industrial activity could make the area less appealing and take away those businesses' customers. That gives me a way to understand the predicted closures.
But I still need the numbers. Suppose the mines add 10,000 jobs while the closures remove 1,000. We would gain 9,000 overall. Losing some existing jobs doesn't establish that the losses exceed the new jobs. The owner hasn't supplied that comparison.
What we’re looking for
The question shifts us from assessing the argument to describing one statement's role. The overall point is the predicted net decrease in jobs. The claim that businesses depend on natural beauty is being used to support that point, so my first description is 'a premise.' We'll need to check exactly how the answer choices describe its supporting role.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
'For a statement' makes this worth inspecting carefully. Which statement does the natural-beauty claim directly support? The claim that most of those businesses would close. Why close? Because the beauty they depend on would be disrupted by heavy industry.
Now move one step further. Those predicted closures support the overall conclusion that the region would lose jobs. So the route is dependence on beauty, then closures, then a net job loss. A captures the step between the targeted premise and the main conclusion. That is what my initial, broad description of 'a premise' hadn't yet distinguished.
- B
This is tempting because it also calls the statement a premise. The difference is 'direct support' for the overall conclusion. The argument first uses dependence on natural beauty to explain the closures, then uses the closures to support the job forecast. B skips that intervening claim. Compare the complete route in A rather than choosing just because 'premise' sounds right.
- C
To be an intermediate conclusion, this particular claim would need support of its own within the argument. The passage gives no evidence establishing that the businesses depend on natural beauty; it takes that as a starting fact. The supported intermediate claim is that they would close.
- D
The final point is the predicted overall decrease in regional jobs if mining is allowed. Depending on natural beauty helps explain why some existing jobs would disappear. It is part of the reasoning for the job forecast, not the forecast itself.
- E
Both parts fail. The author offers no evidence for the targeted dependence claim, and the claim is intended to support the overall conclusion through the predicted closures. It isn't a supported statement sitting apart from the argument's main reasoning.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.