Top Law Schools

Okay so this question is giving me fits. I cannot make it make complete sense, I've got a fragmented idea of how this argument is operating.

Essentially the conclusion is stating that designating land as wildness doesn't violate the multiple use philosophy, and the support used is that although it doesn't bring the greatest dollar return, it provides the greatest overall benefit.

Honestly at this point, I was kind of thinking... whats wrong with the argument? I think I didn't have a great idea of what the assumption was, but went into the answer choices because this was a timed section. So in my head I'm thinking .. "doesnt it fit the multiple use philosophy - it provides the greatest overall benefit, which is necessary for the multiple use.

So, the answer choices:

(A) This isn't an assumption that is necessary. The natural resources themselves don't necessary have to be used in ways the greatly benefit the present and future generations, but rather using the land as wilderness (which presumably preserves resources) instead.

(B) If this is negated, and it doesn't prevent any exploitation of natural resources in that area - it doesn't matter. We are never concerned with preventing exploitation in this question.

(C) Left it.

(D) Left it.

(E) Never compares the two at all.

Okay so at this point I'm thinking hmm, I don't really know how to figure out which one of these is right.

So my logic was, in looking back at (C) was, well if we ARE going to designate more wilderness and it isn't going to violate the multiple use philosophy, it would have to best meet the present and future needs of the public. If it didn't, then it would be violating the multiple use philosophy! Then, I picked it.

In retrospect I guess I missed the "designating greater numbers", but is this really what makes this answer wrong? This seems like the correct response to me honestly.

With (D), my reasoning here was probably pretty bad but, I just couldnt see how, if it DIDNT take into account non financial needs how it would destroy the reasoning. Also partially, I was pretty sold on (C) so I felt like I got it correct and moved on.

Can someone break this down slowly to me, between (C) and (D)? I just don't get it.

Post removed.

The question is an assumption required. This means, which of the following do we assume is true that, if false, would throw off our argument.

C says "The present and future needs of the public would be best met by designating greater number of wilderness areas." For me this got an instant flag in that, who said there aren't other, equally as great, or better ways that, in concjunction with designating wilderness areas would best meet the needs. So best is a big turn-off here.

D says "The multiple-use philosophy takes into account some non-financial needs of the best of the public" This must be true. We already know that the argument says that desginating wilderness areas is not the best move financially. So if D is not true, then how in the world could they come to their conclusion which would say that:

We want to maximize Multiple Use
X is not the most financially sound option
Multiple use only takes into account for financial needs
Therefore to maximize multiple use we should do X

Of course this is backwards. Therefore, D is needed because we need there to be something besides financial needs that is considered in order for the argument to be valid, otherwise they'd be saying that, despite being worse in the only field that matters, you should choose X.

My two cents:

The conclusion is that designating land as a wilderness area won't necessarily violate multiple use. Why? Because even though it doesn't provide the greatest dollar return (where the F did $ come from? suspect) it can provide the greatest overall benefit from that site.

D) If D isn't necessary, then only financial needs of the public are relevant. We know that it doesn't provide the greatest dollar return. Therefore, the conclusion doesn't follow because our reason for saying that they're not inconsistent just went out the window.

C) Don't lose sight of the argument in the passage. There is one reason given for why multiple use philosophy and a wildlife area designation aren't inconsistent - that is because it can provide greatest overall benefit from that site. Not for any other reason does the argument say that they're not inconsistent. Saying that it's not the best for the present and future isn't required to say that "IN SO FAR AS one considers overall benefit from a specific site, wilderness and multiple use philosophy aren't inconsistent."

Maybe they are in fact inconsistent, just based on different considerations, of which there might be hundreds. But that's not our concern here.

js1663 wrote:The question is an assumption required. This means, which of the following do we assume is true that, if false, would throw off our argument.

C says "The present and future needs of the public would be best met by designating greater number of wilderness areas." For me this got an instant flag in that, who said there aren't other, equally as great, or better ways that, in concjunction with designating wilderness areas would best meet the needs. So best is a big turn-off here.

D says "The multiple-use philosophy takes into account some non-financial needs of the best of the public" This must be true. We already know that the argument says that desginating wilderness areas is not the best move financially. So if D is not true, then how in the world could they come to their conclusion which would say that:

We want to maximize Multiple Use
X is not the most financially sound option
Multiple use only takes into account for financial needs
Therefore to maximize multiple use we should do X

Of course this is backwards. Therefore, D is needed because we need there to be something besides financial needs that is considered in order for the argument to be valid, otherwise they'd be saying that, despite being worse in the only field that matters, you should choose X.

Okay, you've actually made (D) make sense for me, but I don't get (C) is wrong. The stimulus says in order to meet the standard of "multiple use" resources in combos that will BEST MEET the present and future needs of the public.. and (C) is stating that this is rxactly what designating more would do. Am I just misinterpreting (C) completely?

So, (C) is actually stating that by designating wilderness, it is the absolute best option for meeting the public needs.. but isn't this just how to meet the requirement of the multiple use ideal?

I understand how this is a common trap answer, by saying something is the absolute best way to do something when that is too strong, but in this case, isn't that simply a requirement to make the term "multiple use" apply? I think I'm misinterpreting what (C) is even saying, or what multiple use was defined as. Still bit confused.

flash21 wrote:Okay, you've actually made (D) make sense for me, but I don't get (C) is wrong. The stimulus says in order to meet the standard of "multiple use" resources in combos that will BEST MEET the present and future needs of the public.. and (C) is stating that this is rxactly what designating more would do. Am I just misinterpreting (C) completely?

C is saying that, but look at the argument. The argument is that wilderness and multiple use aren't inconsistent, according to one criteria: "overall benefit for the site," aside from money.

flash21 wrote:So, (C) is actually stating that by designating wilderness, it is the absolute best option for meeting the public needs.. but isn't this just how to meet the requirement of the multiple use ideal?

Yeah, but we don't care if it is or isn't multiple use; we care if it is or isn't consistent with multiple use for the reason of "overall benefit for the site."

Rhymes With Wolf wrote:

flash21 wrote:Okay, you've actually made (D) make sense for me, but I don't get (C) is wrong. The stimulus says in order to meet the standard of "multiple use" resources in combos that will BEST MEET the present and future needs of the public.. and (C) is stating that this is rxactly what designating more would do. Am I just misinterpreting (C) completely?

C is saying that, but look at the argument. The argument is that wilderness and multiple use aren't inconsistent, according to one criteria: "overall benefit for the site," aside from money.

flash21 wrote:So, (C) is actually stating that by designating wilderness, it is the absolute best option for meeting the public needs.. but isn't this just how to meet the requirement of the multiple use ideal?

Yeah, but we don't care if it is or isn't multiple use; we care if it is or isn't consistent with multiple use for the reason of "overall benefit for the site."

Hmm wait. The point you made about looking at the argument, "overall benefit for the site"

the stimulus says, multiple use refers to utilization of NR that best meet the future needs of the public. Does it say that its specifically for that site, or is that just implied by the way its written? I'm just trying to get clear here.

Also, I am sadly still confused.

Is (C) in anyway a sufficient assumption answer choice, or does it somewhat resemble one? I'm trying to figure out why I cannot eliminate it in my head.

flash21 wrote:the stimulus says, multiple use refers to utilization of NR that best meet the future needs of the public. Does it say that its specifically for that site, or is that just implied by the way its written? I'm just trying to get clear here.

The stimulus does say that, but the argument occurs in the last sentence.

Saying "wilderness isn't multiple use!" doesn't disprove that "wilderness is consistent with multiple use based on how it provides the greatest overall benefit from that site." The conclusion is that, because they share something in common, they are not necessarily inconsistent just based on that one consideration.

You're probably wanting to chose (C) because it mirrors the language in the first sentence, which isn't relevant once you understand exactly what the argument is trying to say.