Q21 - So-called environmentalists have

[greatwhiteshark100]

A quick question about A and B.

I don't really see why B is wrong, and also, I can't figure out how to map the logical relationship from the stem in order to draw the assumption stated in A.

Thanks!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question!

This argument concludes that the objection raised by the "so-called environmentalists" is not their real concern, based on the premise that they've raised similar environmental objections to virtually every recent development proposal. But how do we know that those objections weren't sincere? The argument has to assume that they weren't; otherwise, the fact of the recent objections wouldn't support the conclusion that the current objections are insincere.

(A) is correct, then, because it must be assumed that not all of the objections were sincere. If they were all sincere, then the conclusion wouldn't follow from the premise.

(B) tells us that development-haters always try to hide their true motives. But this doesn't help us, because we're trying to get to the conclusion that the "so-called environmentalists" are in fact just development-haters; we don't know this from the premise.

(C) is incorrect because the argument is not about whether development opponents are opponents of progress.

(D) is far out of scope; the argument is not at all about whether the council agrees or disagrees.

(E) is a sufficient assumption, but it's not necessary. We don't have to assume that this is always the case.

Does that answer your question?

[mvh34891]

So I still have a serious issue with this question. The essence is this:

Is it possible for these environmentalists to oppose all recent projects on dire economic grounds and still possess an ulterior, anti-progress agenda?

Yes! Let's say they held a strategy meeting years prior, and agreed that their publicly expressed concerns over all future projects would be over legitimate threats to the environment, but that their true goal was preventing any development.

(A) is saying that consistency of publicly stated position obviates ulterior motive. We simply cannot make that claim.

[maryadkins]

Yeah, I think the reason it works is because the claim isn't just that they're about anti-development, it's that they're ONLY about anti-development: "is nothing but a mask..."

So if (A) were negated it, and every development they opposed was because they believed it to be a threat, it wouldn't be ONLY anti-development they care about.

Now, if your point is that they can oppose something because it is a dire threat but still be otherwise motivated...fair enough. Then you just have to get to (A) by process of elimination.

[mvh34891]

Good points. And yes, at the end of the day, the right answer choice can only come from the five the LSAC provides.

[heeeeezah]

Thanks for your question!

This argument concludes that the objection raised by the "so-called environmentalists" is not their real concern, based on the premise that they've raised similar environmental objections to virtually every recent development proposal. But how do we know that those objections weren't sincere? The argument has to assume that they weren't; otherwise, the fact of the recent objections wouldn't support the conclusion that the current objections are insincere.

(A) is correct, then, because it must be assumed that not all of the objections were sincere. If they were all sincere, then the conclusion wouldn't follow from the premise.

(B) tells us that development-haters always try to hide their true motives. But this doesn't help us, because we're trying to get to the conclusion that the "so-called environmentalists" are in fact just development-haters; we don't know this from the premise.

(C) is incorrect because the argument is not about whether development opponents are opponents of progress.

(D) is far out of scope; the argument is not at all about whether the council agrees or disagrees.

(E) is a sufficient assumption, but it's not necessary. We don't have to assume that this is always the case.

Does that answer your question?

I understand it's been long since the last post but I still have a question.
You said that E is wrong because it's a sufficient answer choice. Like you said, I eliminated A because I thought it was necessary assumption and chose E because it was a sufficient assumption. Isn't the question stem telling you to choose SA? I chekcked on 7sage website and they also classified it as SA

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I understand it's been long since the last post but I still have a question.
You said that E is wrong because it's a sufficient answer choice. Like you said, I eliminated A because I thought it was necessary assumption and chose E because it was a sufficient assumption. Isn't the question stem telling you to choose SA? I chekcked on 7sage website and they also classified it as SA

Good question. Nope this is definitely a Necessary Assumption question.

The question reads:
For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?

Notice the word "must" at the end there. This is definitely a Necessary Assumption. It's a common mistake (but I'm surprised the folks over at 7sage made it).

Here's where the problem comes from. People see the words properly drawn and they think Sufficient Assumption. But those aren't the key words. Take another example:

The conclusion above is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

People point to the words properly drawn as evidence that this is a Sufficient Assumption question, but really the word "if" is doing all the work. To see this let's edit our question stem:

The conclusion above is properly drawn only if which one of the following is assumed?

Now the words "only if" tell us that we're on a Necessary Assumption question.

Hope that was helpful.

[YoulunZ130]

When I first read the stimulus, I figured out that it assumes all of the objections raised by the environmentalists were not genuine. Otherwise, it would be risky to dismiss any of them. What if it happened to be a genuine one?

So I quickly passed A over when I saw "not every". But I then realized that "not every proposal is genuine" means that "some proposals are not genuine", which is a necessary condition for "all of the proposals are not genuine". Is this the right way to crack this question? I don't think that I could get it in 1.5 minutes because there are actually two inferences to make. Any more efficient method?

[jeanne'sjean]

A quick question. Can AC (D) act as a Strengthener?

The so-called environmentalist know that there are no objections work well other than the proposal of environmental concern, so they have to take this stance as their musk?

Thanks!

[ChentuoZ870]

As discussions above suggest, the questioin type (Necessary Assumption) is critical for making the correct choice.

When comes to (A), my initial thinking is: the (A) says "NOT every ... was opposed because..", yet my ideal choice is "every ... was opposed NOT because...".

A detailed check may lead to the reasoning that the former expression must hold if the letter expression hold, or the former expression(NOT every...) is less restrict than the latter(every... NOT).
So, if the latter is necessary, then the former MUST be necessary. (do not pay attention to whether the latter is sufficient assumption here, because other assumption may be needed for the conclusion to be true, to think about these assumption
and whether the latter is sufficient here may be time consuming.)

It is indeed a weird question.

Or you can arrive at (A) by NEGATION. NEGATION of (A) reads:
EVERY development proposal... was opposed because they believed... thread to the environment.
if NEGATION is true, then the conclusion must be false. Since the conclusion is true(or we try to arrive at it), so (A) must be true.