LSAT Forum
-
- bnuvincent
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 32
- Joined: May 11th, 2010
- First Responder
Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
I think I understand the stimulus, however , I found A tempting. Could you please explain why answer choice A is wrong ?
-
- ManhattanPrepLSAT1
-
Thanks Received: 1909
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 2851
- Joined: October 07th, 2009
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
This one is one of the tougher questions on this PrepTest...
I think about the stimulus as saying something that I'm somewhat familiar with based on my experience in my hometown Seattle. In the Pacific Northwest there is a very large company called Weyerhauser, that is a major supplier of lumber. So, I imagine the stimulus as saying regions of natural beauty (say a place like Seattle) that was heavily dependent on the logging industry, imposes environmental regulations, and while the environmental protections hurt the old lumber industry, they preserve the natural beauty of the area, attracting new people and new businesses. Thus, while the environmental protections may have hurt the old industry, they benefited the economy overall as they attracted new businesses like Microsoft and Boeing.
The key here is paying attention to the difference between an effect and the net effect. A partial effect of environmental regulations is to harm older local industries, but the net effect is that the economy overall will benefit.
The assumption here is that the good outweighs the bad. The benefits of the new businesses that come to the area need to be greater than the damage done to the older local industries. Unfortunately, none of the answer choices says this very clearly. The best way to move forward at this point is to negate each of the answer choices. If the negation of the answer choice destroys the conclusion, then it is the correct answer. If the conclusion is unaffected, then the answer choice was not necessary to the argument.
(A) undermines the argument by suggesting that once the environmental regulations are put into place, the natural beauty may disappear. There is no need to apply the negation strategy to an answer choice that undermines the conclusion, because the correct answer should not weaken but rather strengthen the argument.
(B) is the most tempting and incorrect answer. This answer choice is consistent with the argument. Even if the economies of most areas of natural beauty are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by environmental regulations, so long as the benefits of the new companies are greater than the damage, then the conclusion would be left unaffected.
(C) is not assumed in the argument. There could be other ways more significant that the regulations support the economy.
(D) is out of scope. We know nothing about voluntary environmental protection, nor do we need to in order to establish the conclusion in the argument.
(E) is assumed in the argument. If a factor harmful to some older local industries in a region (environmental regulation) would necessarily discourage other businesses from relocating to that region, then there would be no way for the environmental regulation to have a "positive net effect."
#officialexplanation
I think about the stimulus as saying something that I'm somewhat familiar with based on my experience in my hometown Seattle. In the Pacific Northwest there is a very large company called Weyerhauser, that is a major supplier of lumber. So, I imagine the stimulus as saying regions of natural beauty (say a place like Seattle) that was heavily dependent on the logging industry, imposes environmental regulations, and while the environmental protections hurt the old lumber industry, they preserve the natural beauty of the area, attracting new people and new businesses. Thus, while the environmental protections may have hurt the old industry, they benefited the economy overall as they attracted new businesses like Microsoft and Boeing.
The key here is paying attention to the difference between an effect and the net effect. A partial effect of environmental regulations is to harm older local industries, but the net effect is that the economy overall will benefit.
The assumption here is that the good outweighs the bad. The benefits of the new businesses that come to the area need to be greater than the damage done to the older local industries. Unfortunately, none of the answer choices says this very clearly. The best way to move forward at this point is to negate each of the answer choices. If the negation of the answer choice destroys the conclusion, then it is the correct answer. If the conclusion is unaffected, then the answer choice was not necessary to the argument.
(A) undermines the argument by suggesting that once the environmental regulations are put into place, the natural beauty may disappear. There is no need to apply the negation strategy to an answer choice that undermines the conclusion, because the correct answer should not weaken but rather strengthen the argument.
(B) is the most tempting and incorrect answer. This answer choice is consistent with the argument. Even if the economies of most areas of natural beauty are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by environmental regulations, so long as the benefits of the new companies are greater than the damage, then the conclusion would be left unaffected.
(C) is not assumed in the argument. There could be other ways more significant that the regulations support the economy.
(D) is out of scope. We know nothing about voluntary environmental protection, nor do we need to in order to establish the conclusion in the argument.
(E) is assumed in the argument. If a factor harmful to some older local industries in a region (environmental regulation) would necessarily discourage other businesses from relocating to that region, then there would be no way for the environmental regulation to have a "positive net effect."
#officialexplanation
-
- ManhattanPrepLSAT1
-
Thanks Received: 1909
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 2851
- Joined: October 07th, 2009
- This post thanked 3 times.
Re: Q16 - environmentalist: Many people prefer to
Let me try an analogy to see if we can get a better understanding of the argument. This question is really close to the same question about "moral socialization" just a few questions away from this one in PT43, S2, Q20.
Suppose I tell you this year that you're going to put some money into your bank account, and that you'll be taking some money out as well. At the end of the year you'll count up the money to determine whether you have more money, the same amount, or less than you had before.
The conclusion of this argument amounts to saying that you'll have more money at the end of this year. But wait a minute, you don't know how much you'll be taking out? This argument assumes that you'll be putting in more than you're pulling out. We don't know that the benefits to the economy will be greater than the damage done to the older local economy.
Answer choice (B) basically says that you won't be pulling out a lot of money this year. But that's not needed for having more money at the end of the year, you might just put a lot of money in to make up for all that you took out.
Answer choice (E) suggests in our analogous argument that pulling money out of the bank does not inhibit you from putting money back into the bank account. Which has to be true. If it did prohibit you from putting money back into the bank, then you wouldn't be able to have more money at the end of the year than at the beginning.
Does the analogy help?
Suppose I tell you this year that you're going to put some money into your bank account, and that you'll be taking some money out as well. At the end of the year you'll count up the money to determine whether you have more money, the same amount, or less than you had before.
The conclusion of this argument amounts to saying that you'll have more money at the end of this year. But wait a minute, you don't know how much you'll be taking out? This argument assumes that you'll be putting in more than you're pulling out. We don't know that the benefits to the economy will be greater than the damage done to the older local economy.
Answer choice (B) basically says that you won't be pulling out a lot of money this year. But that's not needed for having more money at the end of the year, you might just put a lot of money in to make up for all that you took out.
Answer choice (E) suggests in our analogous argument that pulling money out of the bank does not inhibit you from putting money back into the bank account. Which has to be true. If it did prohibit you from putting money back into the bank, then you wouldn't be able to have more money at the end of the year than at the beginning.
Does the analogy help?
-
- jlz1202
-
Thanks Received: 1
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 31
- Joined: August 27th, 2011
Re: Q16 - environmentalist: Many people prefer to
I am confused by what role does "even if such protection harms come older local industries" play--is it premise or included in the conclusion?
Thanks in advance!
Thanks in advance!
-
- Ejd5050
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 5
- Joined: November 07th, 2011
Re: Q16 - environmentalist: Many people prefer to
Hey Matt I stumbled here using the negation test on answer B.
(B) The economies of most regions of natural beauty are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental protection.
My negation removed the "not". So we have an economy primarily based on local industries (let's say, at least 51% of it) that are going to be harmed by the initial regulation.
I see now why B is wrong, simply because Weyerhauser made up a majority of Seattle's economy initially does not mean after an indefinite period of time that new companies' value added has not compensated for the initial loss.
I think I lost sight of the argument's "future" elements, that the migration of people and business happens over time. To use your account analogy, I was focused on the impact of a withdrawal from my account on day 1--which certainly wouldn't preclude me from depositing more and making a net-gain in the future.
(B) The economies of most regions of natural beauty are not based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental protection.
My negation removed the "not". So we have an economy primarily based on local industries (let's say, at least 51% of it) that are going to be harmed by the initial regulation.
I see now why B is wrong, simply because Weyerhauser made up a majority of Seattle's economy initially does not mean after an indefinite period of time that new companies' value added has not compensated for the initial loss.
I think I lost sight of the argument's "future" elements, that the migration of people and business happens over time. To use your account analogy, I was focused on the impact of a withdrawal from my account on day 1--which certainly wouldn't preclude me from depositing more and making a net-gain in the future.
-
- lhermary
-
Thanks Received: 10
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 160
- Joined: April 09th, 2011
Re: Q16 - environmentalist: Many people prefer to
The reason I didn't pick E was because even if it does discourage other business it still could lead to economic recovery because it didn't discourage ALL business or resulted in a greater net loss.
Example
200 small businesses are discouraged
3 Massive business aren't, resulting in a net increase to the economy.
Help
Thanks
Example
200 small businesses are discouraged
3 Massive business aren't, resulting in a net increase to the economy.
Help
Thanks
-
- alana.canfield
-
Thanks Received: 4
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 33
- Joined: March 28th, 2011
- Location: Richmond, California
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
mattsherman Wrote:(B) is the most tempting and incorrect answer. This answer choice is consistent with the argument. Even if the economies of most areas of natural beauty are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by environmental regulations, so long as the benefits of the new companies are greater than the damage, then the conclusion would be left unaffected.
I have an alternative reason for why (B) is wrong and I'm just wondering whether or not it is valid. The argument talks about how places with natural beauty "often" experience population growth, etc. Answer (B) talks about "most" regions of natural beauty. The question asks for a required assumption in the argument. Is it required that MOST regions of natural beauty don't have economies based on local industries that would be harmed? I think not. I think the word "most" goes too far when compared to the word "often", which essentially means "many times".
-
- griffin3575
-
Thanks Received: 3
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 14
- Joined: June 21st, 2013
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
I am still confused about how E can be correct. E states that "A factor harmful to some local older industries need not discourage other businesses from relocating to that region."
The stimulus says that the gov. mandate can help those region's economies overall, EVEN IF such protection harms some local industries.
I thought E was incorrect because the stimulus does not actually confirm that the local industries will be harmed. It only says that the economies can increase overall, even if local industries are hurt. Therefore, I thought E was OOS because we don't actually have a factor that definitely harms local industries, only a factor that has the potential to harm local industries. E would have been much more attractive to me if the stimulus had said "EVEN THOUGH such protections harms some older local industries."
Where am I going wrong here?
The stimulus says that the gov. mandate can help those region's economies overall, EVEN IF such protection harms some local industries.
I thought E was incorrect because the stimulus does not actually confirm that the local industries will be harmed. It only says that the economies can increase overall, even if local industries are hurt. Therefore, I thought E was OOS because we don't actually have a factor that definitely harms local industries, only a factor that has the potential to harm local industries. E would have been much more attractive to me if the stimulus had said "EVEN THOUGH such protections harms some older local industries."
Where am I going wrong here?
-
- maryadkins
-
Thanks Received: 641
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: March 23rd, 2011
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
griffin3575 Wrote:I thought E was incorrect because the stimulus does not actually confirm that the local industries will be harmed. It only says that the economies can increase overall, even if local industries are hurt.
We're looking for a necessary assumption, remember, not a sufficient one. We don't need to make the conclusion definitely true; we need something that has to be true for it even to be plausible.
If harming local industry deters new business from coming into the region, then the conclusion that economies will do better over "even if local industries are harmed" is no longer true; the harm to local industries is deterring new business, which is the one thing we're told is improving the economies.
slimz89 Wrote:Do we need answer choice B to be true in order to keep the conclusion intact? Let say we negate the answer choice B which translates into- the economies of natural beauty are based primarily on local industries which are harmed by the governments mandate protection...
So even if the regions of natural beauty primarily rely on older local industries, it is still possible that the new industries that are coming in compensate and exceed the economic loss caused by the government mandated protection and therefore government mandated protection can help the overall economy of regions of natural beauty.
Yes! Good!
-
- brandonhsi
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 29
- Joined: March 08th, 2013
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
I am not sure the meaning of "only until" in (A). I guess (A) would mean the same thing without the word "only," basically "only until" has the same meaning of "until"?
-
- tommywallach
-
Thanks Received: 468
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: August 11th, 2009
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
Hey Brandon,
From a logic perspective, yes they are the same.
-t
From a logic perspective, yes they are the same.
-t
-
- WaltGrace1983
-
Thanks Received: 207
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 837
- Joined: March 30th, 2013
- This post thanked 1 time.
- Most Thanked
- Most Thankful
- First Responder
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
I think this question is legendary and I saw it a wee bit differently that most of you. Hopefully my analysis can help but I am not 100% sure my deductions are logical. Would anyone care to look it over for me?
This is really how I chose to look at the core because now we get this really great dichotomy between (businesses relocating) and (local industries harmed). I chose to think about it this way by thinking about the function of "even if". What is the argument assuming then? I actually think there are two assumptions that could be tested on here.
In other words, the argument is assuming that the businesses relocating to the region will HELP more than the local industries' harm will HURT this economy. I chose to think about it like this: "The argument is assuming that the local industries being harmed is fairly (not completely) irrelevant because those businesses will certainly do a lot for the economy!"
So now that we have a solid understanding of the assumption, let's move on to the answer choices!
So now, we are down to (B) and (E).
- Regions of natural beauty have population growth, encouraging business to relocate to those regions
+
Local industries may be harmed
→
Gov. mandated environmental protection programs (GMEP's) can help regions overall
This is really how I chose to look at the core because now we get this really great dichotomy between (businesses relocating) and (local industries harmed). I chose to think about it this way by thinking about the function of "even if". What is the argument assuming then? I actually think there are two assumptions that could be tested on here.
- (1) Businesses relocating to the region sufficiently helps the economy
(2) Local industries being harmed doesn't sufficiently hurt the economy
In other words, the argument is assuming that the businesses relocating to the region will HELP more than the local industries' harm will HURT this economy. I chose to think about it like this: "The argument is assuming that the local industries being harmed is fairly (not completely) irrelevant because those businesses will certainly do a lot for the economy!"
So now that we have a solid understanding of the assumption, let's move on to the answer choices!
- (A) I eliminated this immediately. This is basically saying that GMEP would hurt the economy because it would cause people to not be as attracted to moving to that region. As we know, the influx of population was (is assumed to be) sufficient for helping the economy and, thus, when we deny that sufficient we can more or less believe that the necessary (the economy being helped) is a bit less plausible.
(B) I kept this one.
(C) I eliminated this immediately. We don't care how they do it. We don't need to offer an explanation. In addition, the original argument concludes that GMEP would help the economy. This answer choice is offering as a premise that GMEP would help the economy. We can't just merely assume the conclusion!
(D) I eliminated this immediately. "Voluntary environmental protection?" We don't need to compare this to GMEP. That is just dumb.
(E) I kept this one.
So now, we are down to (B) and (E).
- (B) Instead of comparing the two answer choices to one another, I looked over the core again. The main point I saw was that the conclusion being "GMEP can help those regions...". This is a very good word to notice. I eliminated (B) because of this word, "can." Why? Because if we take that conclusion as is, we don't need to assume that every or even most economies are based on an essential local industry. Maybe only a few are and this would justify the word "can."
The conclusion therefore is not very strong yet (B) is making a very strong claim about >51% of economies. The argument may only be talking about a few economies. "Can" - in my opinion - made all the difference here. If we negate (B), it is still consistent with the argument.
Now what if (B) had said "economies of some regions of natural beauty are not based primarily on local industries...". This would be a much more tempting answer choice. In fact, I think that it might be correct. If we say that "~some are not based..." we get "ALL regions of natural beauty are based primarily on local industries...". Thus, if those local industries were to be hurt, I don't think there would be much coming back from that - the economy could ostensibly not improve overall. If anyone wants to discuss this, I am totally open to it (please? haha)
(E) Let's negate this to check it out: "A factor harmful to some local industries necessarily discourages other businesses from relocating to that region." If this were true, then we BOTH have (harm) from local industries AND ~(businesses relocating) which was going to be our saving grace for helping the economy. This argument, with the negated (E), officially sucks and thus this answer choice officially rocks
-
- jh2352
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 13
- Joined: July 24th, 2013
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
Can someone please show me how you could properly negate each one of these answer choices?
-
- gaheexlee
-
Thanks Received: 10
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 55
- Joined: May 27th, 2014
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
jh2352 Wrote:Can someone please show me how you could properly negate each one of these answer choices?
I bolded the words that needed to be changed with the negation:
A) If regions of natural beauty typically are not beautiful enough... then governmentally mandated...
B) The economies of most regions... are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed...
C) If governmentally mandated... it does not do so primarily by...
D) Voluntary environmental protection usually does help a region's...
E) A factor harmful to some... need discourage other businesses...
--Edit--
This is what MLsat tutor Patrick said in another thread here about negating conditionals that I think might be useful:
"For the sake of Nec Assumpt, as I said before, when the answers give you a conditional statement, they are correct if they match up with the Prem --> Conc flow/strength of the argument, and they are wrong otherwise."
-
- jrnlsn.nelson
-
Thanks Received: 2
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 24
- Joined: September 06th, 2014
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
I agree with WaltGrace1983, this question IS legendary. Like many here I chose (B) over (E).
One huge problem I have with (E) is that it says: "A factor harmful to some older local industries..."
"A factor" could be referring to a multitude of things, I don't believe there is any way for test takers to conclusively infer that "A factor" is referring to "mandated environmental protections" -- which is what the correctness of this answer hinges on (at least that's how I'm understanding it).
I've done 35+ PT's and I was very confident that (B) was the correct answer. It fits logically (especially upon applying the negation test) and it definitely has the right feel for a correct answer to a Necessary Assumption question.
I'd be super grateful if someone could clarify.
One huge problem I have with (E) is that it says: "A factor harmful to some older local industries..."
"A factor" could be referring to a multitude of things, I don't believe there is any way for test takers to conclusively infer that "A factor" is referring to "mandated environmental protections" -- which is what the correctness of this answer hinges on (at least that's how I'm understanding it).
I've done 35+ PT's and I was very confident that (B) was the correct answer. It fits logically (especially upon applying the negation test) and it definitely has the right feel for a correct answer to a Necessary Assumption question.
I'd be super grateful if someone could clarify.
-
- WaltGrace1983
-
Thanks Received: 207
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 837
- Joined: March 30th, 2013
- This post thanked 1 time.
- Most Thanked
- Most Thankful
- First Responder
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
jrnlsn.nelson Wrote:One huge problem I have with (E) is that it says: "A factor harmful to some older local industries..."
"A factor" could be referring to a multitude of things, I don't believe there is any way for test takers to conclusively infer that "A factor" is referring to "mandated environmental protections" -- which is what the correctness of this answer hinges on (at least that's how I'm understanding it).
If we were to break this down conditionally, then it would look like this: Factor harmful to some local industries --> ~need to discourage relocation. So we don't need A FACTOR to specifically be THE factor we are talking about. In other words, we know that this govt. mandated environmental protection is a "factor harmful to some local industries." Well what do we know about these factors? We know that they "~ need to discourage relocation."
deedubbew Wrote:I know what you mean by the net effect, but E still does not seem like a necessary assumption. What if there are factor other than businesses relocating that cause a positive net effect?
But remember that necessary assumptions are based off the premises. Negate (E), read the argument again with the negated (E) between the premise and the conclusion.
Why can the govt. mandated protection help?
BECAUSE many people like to live in natural beauty and thus want to bring their businesses along with them.
-
- brandonhsi
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 29
- Joined: March 08th, 2013
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
I tried to read the prior posts. However, I couldn't figure out why (E) is a necessary assumption. I was thinking (like some people), environmental protection would still have net positive effect (i.e. help economies) despite (E): hurt local industries and discourage other businesses.
Here is what I think in order to resolve this one:
Premise: Natural beauty ---> people ---> business
Conclusion: environmental protection can help overall economies even if it harms local industries
Assumptions:
environmental protection protects natural beauty ---> people ---> business ----> help economies
Also, the overall net effect is positive.
If we negate (E), the environmental protection actually discourages business. Therefore, the conclusion wouldn't be true.
Here is what I think in order to resolve this one:
Premise: Natural beauty ---> people ---> business
Conclusion: environmental protection can help overall economies even if it harms local industries
Assumptions:
environmental protection protects natural beauty ---> people ---> business ----> help economies
Also, the overall net effect is positive.
If we negate (E), the environmental protection actually discourages business. Therefore, the conclusion wouldn't be true.
-
- asafezrati
-
Thanks Received: 6
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 116
- Joined: December 07th, 2014
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
I'll negate E:
A factor harmful to older industries MUST discourage other businesses from relocating to the region.
Now what does the answer choice mean by "other businesses"?
This one assumes that "other" covers all relevant businesses as a group, but in my opinion "other" can cover computer games stores, and no other business but computer games stores.
What if this one computer store dude is always prevented by the factor that is harmful to some older local industries?
Help?
A factor harmful to older industries MUST discourage other businesses from relocating to the region.
Now what does the answer choice mean by "other businesses"?
This one assumes that "other" covers all relevant businesses as a group, but in my opinion "other" can cover computer games stores, and no other business but computer games stores.
What if this one computer store dude is always prevented by the factor that is harmful to some older local industries?
Help?
-
- rinagoldfield
-
Thanks Received: 309
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 390
- Joined: December 13th, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
brandonhsi, I think your explanation is excellent. Your diagram helps to illuminate why (E) is the correct answer.
asafezrati, your negation is correct.
“Other” in this case refers to “other than the older local businesses.” Those “other” businesses could include computer businesses or energy businesses or hairdressing businesses, but they would include ALL businesses that fall into the category of “not the old businesses.” Thus, the negated (E) hurts the argument by suggesting that environmental protection may not, in fact, encourage businesses to relocate to a region.
brandonhsi Wrote:Here is what I think in order to resolve this one:
Premise: Natural beauty ---> people ---> business
Conclusion: environmental protection can help overall economies even if it harms local industries
Assumptions:
environmental protection protects natural beauty ---> people ---> business ----> help economies
Also, the overall net effect is positive.
If we negate (E), the environmental protection actually discourages business. Therefore, the conclusion wouldn't be true.
asafezrati, your negation is correct.
asafezrati Wrote:I'll negate E:
A factor harmful to older industries MUST discourage other businesses from relocating to the region.
“Other” in this case refers to “other than the older local businesses.” Those “other” businesses could include computer businesses or energy businesses or hairdressing businesses, but they would include ALL businesses that fall into the category of “not the old businesses.” Thus, the negated (E) hurts the argument by suggesting that environmental protection may not, in fact, encourage businesses to relocate to a region.
-
- jm.kahn
-
Thanks Received: 10
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 88
- Joined: September 02nd, 2013
Re: Q16 - Environmentalist: Many people prefer
One thing that no one has pointed out in all prior posts and the reason I eliminated B was because it mentioned only "Local industries" instead of "older local industries" in the stimulus.
The necessary assumption may refer only to "older local industries" and that's why B is wrong. Anyone else eliminated for this reason?
The necessary assumption may refer only to "older local industries" and that's why B is wrong. Anyone else eliminated for this reason?