PT 43 S2 #16 and #14

User avatar
niederbomb
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:07 pm

PT 43 S2 #16 and #14

Postby niederbomb » Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:02 am

14: C or D? Justify the Conclusion

Conclusion: Residents should not consider the loss of farming a tragedy because the loss of farming has increased economic prosperity.

D: Residents themselves are more prosperous, not just the newcomers/others.

C: Residents don't care about farming anyway, so why should they call it a tragedy?

C is the credited response.

16: Assumption

Argument: Environmental regulations help economic prosperity by making places more beautiful and causing more people to move there.

Both B and E seem to work as assumptions. Why is E right?

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: PT 43 S2 #16 and #14

Postby AverageTutoring » Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:01 pm

niederbomb wrote:14: C or D? Justify the Conclusion

Conclusion: Residents should not consider the loss of farming a tragedy because the loss of farming has increased economic prosperity.

D: Residents themselves are more prosperous, not just the newcomers/others.

C: Residents don't care about farming anyway, so why should they call it a tragedy?

C is the credited response.

16: Assumption

Argument: Environmental regulations help economic prosperity by making places more beautiful and causing more people to move there.

Both B and E seem to work as assumptions. Why is E right?


I only have time for one for now. Let's do Q16.

Premis

People like to live in beautiful Areas

Beautiful Areas --> Often experience new residents, and business re-location

Conclusion

Governmentally mandated environment protection is good for the economy even if it displaces some older local industries

Assumption

The major assumption here is that the economic benefit from the governmentally mandated policies/protection will BE GREATER than the economic lost due to the inconvience to the older industries

Answers

B: A nice pretend answer indeed! But let us use the negation technique. Suppose that every area of local beauty had economies that were dependent on old local industries, which would be harmed by these new protection(s). Do we know that the NEW BUSINESS that would come about from the protection would not be greater then the downfall in the old businesses? No. We simply know that the old businesses will be hurt, but to what degree, we cannot conclude. So even if this were true, the argument could still hold because the new business that the policies bring in could outweigh what was lost.

In effect, we still have the same problem as in the stimulus. Answer choice E picks up on this, because we absolutely need the new business to come about from the environmental policies. If that new business is discouraged, you are not only losing that new business but the old business, and are losing in total economics. Which the stimulus says is not the case!

bee's vision
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:36 pm

Re: PT 43 S2 #16 and #14

Postby bee's vision » Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:19 pm

14 is a strengthen question not a Justify the Conclusion, it says "does the most to justify" maybe that's why you got confused. If not, I see two ways D could be eliminated 1) the conclusion is about All residents while D is about "many residents" (many=some=maybe just one) which doesn't strengthen the conclusion very much if at all. 2) It's basically just adding another premise that's in line with the economic evidence in the argument which is not conclusive enough to prove the conclusion which is about how the residents should feel about the loss of farming. The argument rests on the assumption that there are no other reasons that could make the loss of farming a tragedy, so C strengthens the argument by making that assumption explicit.

Hope that helps.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Kaziende, Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests