Pt 24, sec 3, question 25

uchicago
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 6:31 pm

Pt 24, sec 3, question 25

Postby uchicago » Thu May 27, 2010 3:09 pm

can anyone explain this one to me? i choose B...

here is what i did...

protecting ozone layer - monetary account (calcuable)

not calucable - no protection

then the conclusion is that it is calcluable?

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Pt 24, sec 3, question 25

Postby bartleby » Thu May 27, 2010 3:35 pm

I'll take a shot.

The conclusion is that last sentence: ozone layer has a calculable m.v.

Economist establishes this by saying obviously we wouldn't spend every resource in the world (maximum calculable m.v.) on the ozone layer, so protecting the ozone layer falls under that max limit and therefore that value is calculable.

B is wrong because the economist doesn't say we shouldn't protect the ozone layer. He just says we would't spend all the money in the world on it. Also the wording for B suggests circular reasoning and his conclusion isn't the same as his reasoning.

C is tempting because of "value" and you might start assuming things like the environmentalist attribute some intangible factors to protecting the ozone layer that make a play on "value" but if you look closely it is used the same throughout: monetary value. Economist says there is a monetary value. Environmentalists say there isn't.

D is the right answer. So we wouldn't spend all the money in the world on it. That doesn't mean we can figure out how much it is worth. How do you get to the conclusion that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value from saying we wouldn't spend everything on it?

A and E are wrong.

-

edit: sorry, I didn't even read your reasoning. I think you just misread the stim.

uchicago
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Pt 24, sec 3, question 25

Postby uchicago » Thu May 27, 2010 4:17 pm

Hi, thanks, that makes sense and i agree it is a flaw, but if the economist calcuulated the upper limit, isnt it also part of calculation m.v? I mean, according to the argument, his approach to calculation is not very convicing, but it is not totally wrong either...right?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw and 6 guests