sara.ginsberg Wrote:This question took me a very long time to crack, and I'm still only partially convinced that the right answer is right. Some help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
adarsh.murthy Wrote:What confuses me with this one is the word tendency. I think the stimulus is saying: what causes the golbal problem is not the imbalance itself, but the tendency for imbalance.. Am I wrong here?
Thanks!
mattsherman Wrote:adarsh.murthy Wrote:What confuses me with this one is the word tendency. I think the stimulus is saying: what causes the golbal problem is not the imbalance itself, but the tendency for imbalance.. Am I wrong here?
Thanks!
That's not so much a problem, though I see what you're saying. Why do we need an actual imbalance if just the fact that we tend to go in that direction the problem? Early in the section be more loose with the language. The LSAT doesn't start to really tighten up like that until around question 15/16.
Even more important though is that the conclusion is "we have to reduce current demand". In order for that to be the conclusion that follows from the evidence, then it's not the "tendency" that's causing the problem, it's an actual imbalance.
Hope that helps!
christine.defenbaugh Wrote:Thanks for posting, judaydaday!
You've got some great thoughts here, but I want to turn you on to a slightly different reading of this argument.
Let's spin back to the argument core for a minute:PREMISES:
1) eco-problems are just because supply and demand tend to get imbalanced
2) potential supply is limited by what the earth has
3) potential demand is unlimited
CONCLUSION: The only solution = reduce current demand
Your reading is interesting: what if our supply-demand problems are cyclical, as human demand leaps and drops, and we're looking for long-term solutions. If that's the case, then maybe at this precise moment current human demand is really low, but we still want to engineer a long term solution. If that were the world, then the long term solution would be about reducing or restricting FUTURE human demand, not the CURRENT human demand.
But there's another way to read this argument that I think is a bit more LSAT-likely: Perhaps at this moment, current demand outstrips current supply - very problematic. But, what if neither of those things are at or above the earth's limits?
Imagine that the Earth somehow creates 100 cubits of adamantium (in some sort of volcanic pressure cooker?). Now, imagine that enterprising people have managed to extract 20 cubits of adamantium per year from these volcanoes. But human demand for adamantium naturally rises to 30 cubits of adamantium per year. We definitely have an imbalance between supply and demand (currently), but the earth's actual supply is way bigger than both. In this situation, there would be at least two solutions - we could decrease current demand, sure, but it's also possible that we could increase the actual supply a bit (since it is nowhere near the final limit on supply).
We don't, strictly speaking, need to choose between these two interpretations. If we negate (C) so that current human demand is lower than the Earth's sustainable supply, then we would seem to have a number of potential options on the table: reducing future demand in your scenario, and increasing actual supply in mine. Either way, we have more options than the one the conclusion claims we have to use!
I would disagree that (B) calls the premise into much question though - we know the earth has limitations, and all we need to know is that we've gone past them for this argument to stand a chance. I might not know exactly how much money my friend Bob has, but I might still be able to conclude that he can't afford to buy a private jet. Human demand could easily be so insanely high that it's absolutely clear that it exceeds the Earth's limits, even without knowing precisely what those limits are.
I agree that it's tricksy though!
Let me know if this helps clear things up a bit!
mattsherman Wrote:adarsh.murthy Wrote:What confuses me with this one is the word tendency. I think the stimulus is saying: what causes the golbal problem is not the imbalance itself, but the tendency for imbalance.. Am I wrong here?
Thanks!
That's not so much a problem, though I see what you're saying. Why do we need an actual imbalance if just the fact that we tend to go in that direction the problem? Early in the section be more loose with the language. The LSAT doesn't start to really tighten up like that until around question 15/16.
Even more important though is that the conclusion is "we have to reduce current demand". In order for that to be the conclusion that follows from the evidence, then it's not the "tendency" that's causing the problem, it's an actual imbalance.
Hope that helps!