PT 47 Q 17

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
User avatar
New_Spice180

Bronze
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:01 am

PT 47 Q 17

Postby New_Spice180 » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:41 am

I was got this answer correct, but I had some issues as to how this (sans Negation test actually fills the gap). One explanation says it defends/rules out a possibility of attack, but I simply don't see that here. I reasoned/ equated "non financial needs" with "does not provide the greatest dollar return," and like I stated I negated the answer choice to verify whether it actually was a necessary assumption, and it seemed to be the most reasonable of the other four wrong choices.

Would someone be kind of enough to explain the discrepancy :lol:?

User avatar
lymenheimer

Gold
Posts: 3979
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:54 am

Re: PT 47 Q 17

Postby lymenheimer » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:44 am

"least wrong" = "most right"? :lol:

User avatar
Blueprint Mithun

Bronze
Posts: 456
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm

Re: PT 47 Q 17

Postby Blueprint Mithun » Thu Jul 28, 2016 12:40 pm

New_Spice180 wrote:I was got this answer correct, but I had some issues as to how this (sans Negation test actually fills the gap). One explanation says it defends/rules out a possibility of attack, but I simply don't see that here. I reasoned/ equated "non financial needs" with "does not provide the greatest dollar return," and like I stated I negated the answer choice to verify whether it actually was a necessary assumption, and it seemed to be the most reasonable of the other four wrong choices.

Would someone be kind of enough to explain the discrepancy :lol:?


I think you were spot on with this one. The argument justifies designating land as a wilderness area by stating it provides the greatest overall benefit, even when it doesn't provide the greatest dollar return. So financial considerations are not the only thing at stake here. Thus, it's necessary to state the multiple-use philosophy takes into account some non-financial needs of the public, since if we were to negate this, it would say that it does NOT take into account any non-financial needs, and the justification for the conclusion would fall apart.

User avatar
New_Spice180

Bronze
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:01 am

Re: PT 47 Q 17

Postby New_Spice180 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:56 am

Blueprint Mithun wrote:
New_Spice180 wrote:I was got this answer correct, but I had some issues as to how this (sans Negation test actually fills the gap). One explanation says it defends/rules out a possibility of attack, but I simply don't see that here. I reasoned/ equated "non financial needs" with "does not provide the greatest dollar return," and like I stated I negated the answer choice to verify whether it actually was a necessary assumption, and it seemed to be the most reasonable of the other four wrong choices.

Would someone be kind of enough to explain the discrepancy :lol:?


I think you were spot on with this one. The argument justifies designating land as a wilderness area by stating it provides the greatest overall benefit, even when it doesn't provide the greatest dollar return. So financial considerations are not the only thing at stake here. Thus, it's necessary to state the multiple-use philosophy takes into account some non-financial needs of the public, since if we were to negate this, it would say that it does NOT take into account any non-financial needs, and the justification for the conclusion would fall apart.


Thanks!



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests