Q21 - When the supply of a given

[markdanielsalvador]

I don't get how answer E has anything to do with the stimulus. What do "biological requirements" have anything to do with it, and why are air and water being compared to finite resources? I know they specify "clean air" and "clean water," but I still don't get how that relates to "running out of important natural resources."

I guess you could say if clean water dwindles, you can't make a technology to use something else, because you have to use water. But that just weakens a premise at the beginning. How is this saying that we will run out of resources? Isn't it safe to assume that in June 1994 they regularly used technology that cleaned water, and that water isn't a resource that is going to run out?

I selected (C), that the cost of some new technologies is high enough that the developers might lose money at first. I know it's far from a perfect answer, but this at least gives a reason to weaken "Because new technologies constantly replace old ones, we can never run out of important natural resources," because it gives a reason why technology may not always replace old ones. It might cost too much for anyone to want to develop the technology.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

I think it might be helpful to start by just zero in on a very simple understanding of the core:

Because new technologies will constantly replace old ones --> We can never run out of important natural resources.

The problem with this argument, to begin with, is that the author's scope is just too narrow. He's only thinking about the resources, such as flint, that are depleted to create technology, but failing to consider that not all resources are used for technology, and therefore a change in technology does not define the future of all natural resources.

(E) addresses the limitations of his scope.

Clean air and clean water are important natural resources (perhaps the most important!) and they can definitely run out. We don't need outside info to know they are important, because we're told in the answer that the are biological requirements (i.e. things we need to live - pretty important). If it is true that they are not affected by technology, it hurts the argument because the changing of technology is the only premise the author has.

Let's imagine an analogous argument. Let's say someone says "Sarah will like the sweater because it is brown." Then someone refutes by saying "Color does not impact which sweaters Sarah likes." This would hurt the original argument by taking away the impact of the premise.

This LSAT q is much more challenging, but it's the same logical construction. By showing that certain natural resources are unaffected by tech changes, it takes away the impact of the premise.

(C) does not impact the author's reasoning. Cost is not directly relevant, and "might actually lose money at first" is far from being enough to show that cost will prohibit new tech. Furthermore, the idea that "new tech will replace old" is a premise that leads to our conclusion, and not the conclusion itself -- we want an answer that has a direct impact on the conclusion.

Hope that is helpful. Please follow up if you have further questions.

[markdanielsalvador]

Thanks so much! I was definitely looking at the argument from the wrong angle.

[aerialstrong]

I do this type of questions in a very silly way--
This statement is basically saying: technology is good (though i know not quite so, but this is the direction)--to weaken that statement, the choice should contain the info. of "tech is bad" or "tech is not so good", only E has that info. other choice r all irrelevant.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Interesting approach yg84028719... While this may work out sometimes, remain flexible. I might even adjust it. The argument is trying to prove that "we can never run out of important natural resources." If we could find an answer choice that says that we might indeed one day run out of some natural resources, we'd undermine the argument.

Thanks for sharing your ideas!

[nflamel69]

yg84028719. I think Matt hit the home run when he said to remain flexible. one flaw with your method is that you depend on the new info to destroy the argument. since the opposite of something is good is something is not good. but on a tricky question the answer may only raise the possibility that tech isn't good, or simply that you can't conclude from the premise the same conclusion.\, not necessarily the logical opposite of the conclusion. So use it as a tool, but don't rely on it

[WaltGrace1983]

Thought I'd chime in with a really quick breakdown of everything! The first part of the argument isn't too terribly important. It is basically saying the following:

Supply for X dwindles → Alt. tech. develops → Demand for X dwindles → Demand is satisfied (everything is balanced out again)

Yet as I said, this isn't too important from an analysis-of-the-argument standpoint. It is nice to understand for background information though, I suppose. Then the author gives a few examples: flints, usable trees, and good mules. The "real" core comes now:

New technologies constantly replace old ones
→
We can never run out of important natural resources

The first thing to consider is how strong the conclusion is. Saying that something will "never" happen can be very easily weakened - all we have to do is show that it can happen in at least one case. More specifically though, we want to relate this weakener to technology because that is what the argument is focused on.

To weaken this conclusion, we can simply show that just because new technologies replace old ones doesn't mean that we will always have the important natural resources! Can we make substitutes for all natural resources? That is what the argument is implying and that idea is what we want to destabilize.

(A) I have absolutely no idea how this relates.

(B) Ummm okay? This was literally my thought. I guess this was meant to be a trap answer for someone word matching for "mule" and thinking, "well if there are fewer mules than maybe we'll run out!" Either way, this is much too weak and has nothing to do with technology.

(C) Cost doesn't matter. When we are trying to save all the natural resources we'll spend that money (I hope )!

(D) Like (C), cost doesn't matter.

(E) Finally! I was getting afraid when (A)-(D) all sucked. This one basically says that water and air - both things that are natural resources - are completely unaffected by technological change. Thus, technology cannot merely make new water or air! if we take this as true, the argument is not only weakened...it is completely obliterated!