Top Law Schools

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 ?

"least wrong" = "most right"?

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 ?

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.

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 ?

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!