Q16 - Max: Although doing so would

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

These test-writers are so good at including a word here and there that changes everything.

The short answer to your question is that answer choice (B) should not have claimed it's "the only way." We know that the author thinks that this would be a way to relieve severe overcrowding, but not that it's the only way.

The argument relies on the claim that there will be a growing economic incentive. The argument concludes from this that colonies on the moon will be built.

The argument assumes that the economic incentive will be large enough to induce such construction to occur.

We are asked to find a weakness in this argument and by identifying the gap we can say that the argument is flawed because it took for granted an assumption required for the conclusion to be drawn. If you negate the assumption in answer choice (A)

the economic incentive to construct colonies on the Moon will not grow sufficiently to cause such a costly project to be undertaken.

Clearly, the conclusion would be undermined, thus showing that answer choice (A) is something the argument took for granted.

(A) is correct for the reasons above.
(B) is too strong. The argument assumes that colonies on the moon are a way of alleviating overcrowding, but not that it's the only way.
(C) does not describe a flaw in the reasoning. The argument does not overlook that possibility. For if answer choice (C) happened, the conclusion that colonies would be built would still be true.
(D) is out scope. The conclusion is not that overcrowding will be alleviated, but rather in an attempt to alleviate overcrowding, colonies on the moon will be built.
(E) is not assumed in the argument. There could be several people on Earth who would gladly move to the moon (think sci-fi lovers).


#officialexplanation

[nicole_mazga]

I'm stuck on this one as well. I can understand why A is a good answer, but doesn't B fit the bill as well? Because if there are other ways of relieving severe overcrowding on Earth doesn't Max's argument fall apart?

[jklein1233]

But isn't it implicit in Max's conclusion that he believes that this is the only way to relieve overcrowding? He states that such moon colonies will almost certainly be built and severe overcrowding on the earth relieved. If he believed there were alternatives to moon colonies, how could he be so convinced that they would inevitably be built as the human population increases? If there were alternatives to moon colonies wouldn't it be extreme to say that this option will "almost certainly" be realized in the future?

Basically, the way I read it, Max thinks overcrowding is inevitable and as a result moon colonies will be built. I think it's quite reasonable to infer from this information that he assumes moon colonies to be the only way to relieve earth overcrowding. I also understand why answer choice "A" works but am having trouble eliminating answer choice "B"

[mrudula_2005]

But isn't it implicit in Max's conclusion that he believes that this is the only way to relieve overcrowding? He states that such moon colonies will almost certainly be built and severe overcrowding on the earth relieved. If he believed there were alternatives to moon colonies, how could he be so convinced that they would inevitably be built as the human population increases? If there were alternatives to moon colonies wouldn't it be extreme to say that this option will "almost certainly" be realized in the future?

Basically, the way I read it, Max thinks overcrowding is inevitable and as a result moon colonies will be built. I think it's quite reasonable to infer from this information that he assumes moon colonies to be the only way to relieve earth overcrowding. I also understand why answer choice "A" works but am having trouble eliminating answer choice "B"

the way I look at it is...Max's argument definitely allows for several other ways of relieving severe overcrowding on Earth (in addition to the moon colonies that help in relieving sever overcrowding).

overcrowding is such a big issue that there can easily simultaneously be a growing economic incentive to construct moon colonies while there are also other solutions that are being implemented as well.

When he says "such colonies will almost certainly be built" - that statement is not extreme in the way that you are looking at it...just think, when you have a big problem, just because you say that one thing will definitely be done to address it, does not mean that no other solutions exist! there can be many different solutions, but the severity of the issue warrants as many effective approaches as possible, one of which he thinks is the moon colony idea....but that does not mean he thinks its the ONLY idea...

in sum: there can be a strong economic incentive to do something and a confident prediction that that solution will be implemented even though other solutions exist.

that was very rough but maybe it'll help?

[peg_city]

I have a problem with this one.

The conclusion is "Such colonies will almost certainly be built and severe overcrowding on earth relieved"

If C is right then earth's crowding will not be relieved because there isn't any overcrowding to begin with.

What can I do so I don't make this mistake again?

[alana.canfield]

I really wanted to choose A for this question but decided on trying my luck with D because the argument says "almost certainly" will be built while A is basically saying "certainly" will be built.

Am I wrong in assuming "almost certainly" does not equal "certainly"? Are these two actually the same thing? Please help!

Also, for the previous post, I just wanted to say that correct answer isn't C, it is A.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Am I wrong in assuming "almost certainly" does not equal "certainly"? Are these two actually the same thing? Please help!

You're correct that there is a difference between "certainly" and "almost certainly."

But answer choice (D) is about what happens after the moon would be colonized. How does the argument overlook the fact that the colonies might quickly become overcrowded? Does the argument depend on them not becoming overcrowded very quickly?

If an answer choice is going to say, "the argument fails to consider that ..." then whatever comes next should actually cause a problem for drawing the conclusion in the argument. But becoming overcrowded quickly only underscores the need for finding somewhere for these people to live and would only support the conclusion that we'll need to build colonies on the moon.

Are you seeing it differently somehow? The only thing I can think of is that because the colonies would become quickly overcrowded, we might decide against building them in the first place. Is that what you had in mind? One issue with this is that it doesn't describe an error of reasoning between the evidence and the conclusion. Try not to think only about the conclusion, but about the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion - and the error that lies between them. Answer choice (D) doesn't relate back to the evidence for the conclusion.

Does that answer your question?

[lhermary]

Am I wrong in assuming "almost certainly" does not equal "certainly"? Are these two actually the same thing? Please help!

You're correct that there is a difference between "certainly" and "almost certainly."

But answer choice (D) is about what happens after the moon would be colonized. How does the argument overlook the fact that the colonies might quickly become overcrowded? Does the argument depend on them not becoming overcrowded very quickly?

If an answer choice is going to say, "the argument fails to consider that ..." then whatever comes next should actually cause a problem for drawing the conclusion in the argument. But becoming overcrowded quickly only underscores the need for finding somewhere for these people to live and would only support the conclusion that we'll need to build colonies on the moon.

Are you seeing it differently somehow? The only thing I can think of is that because the colonies would become quickly overcrowded, we might decide against building them in the first place. Is that what you had in mind? One issue with this is that it doesn't describe an error of reasoning between the evidence and the conclusion. Try not to think only about the conclusion, but about the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion - and the error that lies between them. Answer choice (D) doesn't relate back to the evidence for the conclusion.

Does that answer your question?

Can you go into more detail as why C is wrong?

Obviously C doesn't change the conclusion that the stimulus comes to, however it exploits the reasoning behind the conclusion, namely that the need for more land will result in colonies on the moon.

Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

Can you go into more detail as why C is wrong?

Obviously C doesn't change the conclusion that the stimulus comes to, however it exploits the reasoning behind the conclusion, namely that the need for more land will result in colonies on the moon.

Thanks

It does not exploit the reasoning behind the conclusion! Here is why!

Max's conclusion is that colonies on the Moon will almost certainly be built and severe overcrowding on Earth will be relieved.

So let us see what his evidence is for stating this rather strong conclusion. (It better be strong!)

1) Already possess the technology to build colonies on the moon, but it is very costly.

2) As human population increases and the amount of unoccupied space available for constructing housing goes down....the economic incentive to construct colonies on the Moon for some of the population will be increasing.

Does that automatically let us conclude that those colonies will almost certainly be built on the Moon?

No!

People earlier in this thread have hit on the idea that maybe the economic incentive will never be reached. It is true that it may be increasing, but we do not know what the limit is for undertaking such an action.

I would also argue that another flaw in this argument is that we do not know that the human population will continue to increase.

We are basically given this comparative statement to support the idea of it being almost certain that these Moon colonies will be built.

As human pop goes up and space available goes down...economic incentive goes up for building these Moon colonies.

To declare "almost certain" on the basis of that comparison is to make a conclusion that is FULL of assumptions.

[LSAT-Chang]

If the stimulus concluded: "such colonies must be built" then would answer choice B hold? Since if that is the case, then we could argue that it doesnt HAVE to be built since there could be other ways to relieve the overcrowding. I correctly chose A but I was definitely tempted by B as well. The only reason I didnt choose it wqs because the word "only" seemed too strong and didnt match up with the stimulus' degree. Any thoughts?

[timmydoeslsat]

Answer choice (A) would still be the better option in that situation of the conclusion stating "must be built."

I would not say that the problem would be that it is "only" way because the author does not state such.

The author goes from talking about there being a growing incentive. Therefore it is likely....or....therefore it must (will) happen....the same flaw is being committed. We have no reason to believe that the incentive will continue to grow to reach such a sufficient level.

[crazinessinabox]

But isn't it implicit in Max's conclusion that he believes that this is the only way to relieve overcrowding? He states that such moon colonies will almost certainly be built and severe overcrowding on the earth relieved. If he believed there were alternatives to moon colonies, how could he be so convinced that they would inevitably be built as the human population increases? If there were alternatives to moon colonies wouldn't it be extreme to say that this option will "almost certainly" be realized in the future?

Basically, the way I read it, Max thinks overcrowding is inevitable and as a result moon colonies will be built. I think it's quite reasonable to infer from this information that he assumes moon colonies to be the only way to relieve earth overcrowding. I also understand why answer choice "A" works but am having trouble eliminating answer choice "B"

I had the exact same thought. Ultimately, I ruled out (B) for a reason other than the "too strong" argument (which I do think is better after reading the thread). I think the phrasing of the argument ultimately makes (B) too far a reach. The argument limits "growing economic incentive" specifically to building of Moon colonies. As such, I saw (B) as a potential sub-flaw of the more basic one described in (A). If there are other means of alleviating this alleged inevitable overcrowding, then the economic incentive to build Moon colonies won't grow so much as to actually build the colonies.

[alana.canfield]

Are you seeing it differently somehow? The only thing I can think of is that because the colonies would become quickly overcrowded, we might decide against building them in the first place. Is that what you had in mind? One issue with this is that it doesn't describe an error of reasoning between the evidence and the conclusion. Try not to think only about the conclusion, but about the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion - and the error that lies between them. Answer choice (D) doesn't relate back to the evidence for the conclusion.

I was reading the conclusion to be that colonies on the moon will almost certainly be built and severe overcrowding on earth relieved, and I was focusing on the last bit about overcrowding when I was considering (D). My logic was that severe overcrowding on earth will not necessarily be relieved if the moon itself becomes quickly overcrowded because I was assuming that people are only sent to the moon once the earth is overcrowded and so if the moon is overcrowded then the earth is overcrowded and severe overcrowding on earth would not have been relieved. But now, I can see a lot of errors with this logic. Firstly, the colonies on the moon might become overcrowded without the moon itself becoming overcrowded, which means more colonies can be made, and severe overcrowding on earth will still be relieved. Secondly, it as an assumption to say that just because the moon colonies are overcrowded then the earth is overcrowded. Thirdly, as you mentioned above, (D) isn't really focusing on breaking the logic chain, and I was focusing too much on the conclusion (a common problem for me because most of the time focusing on the conclusion seems to work and make problems faster/easier to solve... but taken to an extreme it is sort of like the lazy way to do a problem and something I'm working on). Thanks for the help!

[shaynfernandez]

I got this question right based on a pre phrase of the prediction in the conclusion.

But like many people have brought up, I don't really understand this almost certainly ordeal.

A. Is the best answer because it shows that the author assumes this project will "almost certainly occur"

But I could see A being incorrect because it expresses "assumes that the Econ incentive will grow enough to cause the project to be undertaken"
Well he isn't assuming it will be undertaken for sure. It seems like as would be better of stating "assumes that the Econ incentive will grow enough to make the project extremly likely to occur"

Why is there nothing wrong with this small gap in probability or certainty?

[chiach2]

Can someone please help me see why E is wrong? The arguments concludes that "such colonies will almost certainly be built and severe overcrowding on Earth relieved."

In making this conclusion, dosent this conclusion have to assume that some humans would want to move to the Moon? What if the colonies were built but everyone decided to stay on earth? How would the issue of relieving overcrowding be reached?

I thought thats wat E is saying:
~EO > ~HPLM thus (HPLM >EO)( Taking for granted that some of the human population would prefer to live on the moon in the event the earth is crowded)

EO=Earth seriously overcrowded
HPLM= Human population would prefer to live on the Moon

[ptewarie]

All,
It is easy to overthink flaw questions. Just remember that if it does not address the gap between the evidence and conclusion you can cross it off immediately.

Evidence: There will be growing economic incentive to construct colonies
Conclusion:: So colonies will most certainly be built.

Thus, the author is assuming that the growing economic incentive is sufficient to trigger that colonies will be built.

Just look for these words within the AC and you can see it in A.
MOVE ON!

I have noted that flaw Answer choices are often out of the scope and people think over them too much.

Choice E: none of the humans would prefer to live on the moon?
Who cares? The author is not talking about human preference at all in the stimulus. He is simply saying that the economic incentive will cause colonies to be made, whether people like it or not is beyond the scope

D: Colonies themselves might get overcrowded? What? Who cares? The stimulus is saying colonies will be built. If they later get overcrowded than that does not mean they won't build them.
Again, does not address incentive.

C: Does not address assumption

B: Comes close, but again, does not address economic incentive.


Remember Question is saying:
"Takes for granted" means assumption.
If the AC does NOT address the necessary assumption then it can't be true.

[pkraft1]

Question about answer (D). It has been stated multiple times in this thread that the conclusion is that "such colonies will almost certainly be built." That's not actually the conclusion though. The conclusion states "such colonies will almost certainly be built and severe overcrowding on Earth relieved."

D states: "it overlooks the possibility that colonies on the Moon might themselves quickly become overcrowded."

I know that Earth is becoming overcrowded because human "population increases." The conclusion states that overcrowding on Earth will be relieved when these colonies are built. This assumes that colonies on the moon would somehow relieve overcrowding, which is caused by population growth. Therefore, the moon colonies have to relieve population growth too, right? I suppose in the short term there will be a relief of the overcrowding problem after the colonies are built-is that why D is wrong? I suppose I took "relieve" to mean something closer to "solve" rather than "possibly put off for probably about a month" (which is what colonies on the moon would do, if you believe we have an overpopulation problem like the stimulus says.

[alena21century]

I first thought that answer E is the correct answer, since when negated it becomes "some people would prefer to live on the Moon if the Earth is severely overcrowded." I first thought that was the wrong assumption in the author's argument. However, upon closer look, I realized that there is no assumption that some people would prefer to live on the Moon. That eliminates this answer choice.

[seychelles1718]

I pre-phrased the flaw as "the argument overlooks the possibility that even if there is a strong economic incentive, there could be other obstacles (social and political reasons) that can prevent such colonies from being built"

So when I first read A, I wasn't really sure if it could be the right answer but after reading all other ACs, I knew A was the best answer and chose it.

Am I missing something by pre-phrasing the way I did above?

[ohthatpatrick]

No, you're not missing anything! That's a wonderful pre-phrase.

What you're seeing is that even when we have a perfectly valid response to the argument, the actual correct answer may go for something different or may allude to what we were thinking in a surprising way.

(A) is not really rewarding the valid reactions you had. It's just pointing out that "a growing economic incentive" doesn't justify "colonies will almost certainly be built".

f.e.
As global warming threatens to make sea levels rise in a low coastal areas, there is growing economic incentive to buy real estate more inland, at slightly higher elevations (which may one day become beachfront property due to rising sea levels).

But even though there's growing economic incentive to do so, that doesn't mean that anyone is going to do it.

This is sort of testing the dynamic between "relative" and "absolute" language.

There is MORE incentive to do this than before.
vs.
There IS sufficient incentive to do this.

The Empire State Building is smaller than the Freedom Tower
vs.
The Empire State Building is small.

But if your question was essentially, "SHOULD I have been able to predict this answer?"
No. You could have, but I just read this one for the first time in forever and my pre-phrase was closer to yours than it was to the correct answer.

Just stay flexible when you're considering answer choices, especially in the "Hard Zone", the 13-21 range of LR sections. They're much less likely to reward our initial reactions/impulses here.