sara.ginsberg
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 1
Joined: April 11th, 2011
 
 
 

Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce

by sara.ginsberg Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:14 pm

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!
 
farhadshekib
Thanks Received: 45
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 99
Joined: May 05th, 2011
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
trophy
Most Thanked
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce

by farhadshekib Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:50 pm

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!


Hi Sara,

I found this one a bit tricky, too, but here is how I understand it.

P1: Global ecological problems can be explained by the problem of balancing supply + demand.

P2: Supply = restricted by earth's limitations.

P3: Demand = human; therefore, no limits on POTENTIAL human demand.

P4: This natural imbalance btw supply and demand = source of some global problems.

Conclusion: Solution to such problems = reducing CURRENT human demand.

If you look closely at P3, it talks about "potential demands" being unlimited; the conclusion, however, argues that we must reduce "current human demands".

So one might ask: "why MUST we reduce current human demands in order to ameliorate such global problems?

That is, current human demand and potential human demand are two different things.

(C) suggests that current human demand, like potential human demand, exceeds the available supply. Thus, there is an imbalance btw supply and demand, which inevitably leads to global ecological problems.

Moreover, since supply is "confined by earth's limitation" (i.e. we can't increase supply to meet all of the demands), we must decrease the current human demand in order to reach that state of equilibrium btw supply and demand.

On a side note, when I did this question, I missed the scope shift from "potential demand" to "current demand", but I was able to arrive at the correct answer by eliminating the other 4.

A) Contradicts the stimulus, which calls the imbalance btw supply and demand a "natural tendency".

B) is stated in the stimulus, so it can't be an assumption (i.e. unstated premise).

D) The author actually seems to believe the opposite; that is, the author seems to be suggesting that by reducing current human demand, we can get closer to that balance btw supply and demand.

I'd also be very careful with answer choices, on necessary assumption questions, with such extreme language.

E) Negate E: Human consumption does decrease the environmental supply. This would actually bolster the author's case - that is, we should reduce current human demands.
User avatar
 
maryadkins
Thanks Received: 641
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: March 23rd, 2011
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce to the problem of bal

by maryadkins Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:26 pm

Great explanation! Does this help clarify for you, Sara? I also missed the term shift between "potential" and "current" when I first read the stimulus. I assumed it was going to be more about a solution being on the supply side or the demand side. (C) alerted me to the term shift with the word "actual."

I just want to comment on your characterization of (B), though. We aren't actually told in the stimulus that we can determine what the limitations on the earth's supply are--we're just told that they exist. But we don't need to know--the argument does not rely on an assumption about being able to identify exactly what they are.

Nice job on a hard question.
User avatar
 
geverett
Thanks Received: 79
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 207
Joined: January 29th, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce to the problem of bal

by geverett Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:04 am

This was challenging for me. I like the explanation cited about potential vs. actual demand. I wanted to go a bit deeper with why B is wrong though and C is right.

I eliminated C because I thought an imbalance between supply and demand would not necessarily have to entail demand exceeding supply. I thought the imbalance mentioned in the stimulus was somewhat ambiguous and could include a whole range of possibilities - demand exceeding supply, demand almost exceeding supply, or the rate of demand being too close for comfort over long term projections. This is why I did not choose C, because I thought "imbalance" was a bit vague in this regard.

The reason I chose B was because we know that supply is confined to the earth's limitations, but we do not necessarily know what those limitations are i.e. - undiscovered oil, gas etc. When I was reading this stimulus my thought was "well in order for them to make a claim that there is an imbalance that exists then there must be a reliable indicator of what the limits of the supply actually are."

Thoughts?
 
zainrizvi
Thanks Received: 16
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 171
Joined: July 19th, 2011
 
 
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce to the problem of bal

by zainrizvi Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:15 pm

I'm not completely sure why can eliminate (B) as well. If we cant determine the limitation, then how can we say there is an imbalance? If we cant say there is an imbalance, then why reduce current human demand?
 
zainrizvi
Thanks Received: 16
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 171
Joined: July 19th, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce to the problem of bal

by zainrizvi Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:59 pm

Okay while reviewing this question I came up with a tentative explanation of my own:

The point of a necessary assumption is to destroy the basis of the particular argument completely


Even if we negate (B), and it is NOT possible to determine the limitations of supply, we still COULD potentially have more demand than supply. Or more supply than demand. Because both options are possible, then clearly this argument COULD work, despite the fact that you can't measure it (i.e even though you couldn't measure it, demand was waaaaay higher than supply and hence you should lower demand <- conclusion)


Now what makes (C) so important is that if actual human demand does NOT exceed earth's sustainable supply. Then according to the information given (e.g imbalance causes problems) , there is absolutely never a reason to decrease demand. Sure there might be some random-crazy situation in which decreasing demand might be necessary for some other reason, so its not like the conclusion is false, it's just that given the argument and this particular evidence, there is no possible combination of hypotheticals that will lead you to the answer.


Haha.. I REALLY hope after my long-winded explanation I'm right.
 
adarsh.murthy
Thanks Received: 1
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 32
Joined: November 03rd, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce to the problem of bal

by adarsh.murthy Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:02 am

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!
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT1
Thanks Received: 1909
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: October 07th, 2009
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce to the problem of bal

by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:55 pm

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!
 
judaydaday
Thanks Received: 6
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 40
Joined: January 14th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce to the problem of bal

by judaydaday Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:19 pm

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!


So from what I'm getting is that the assumption is between the term shift from potential to current. The word "current" in the conclusion indicates that the argument assumes that this imbalance is current; it is presently occurring. Which is why it concludes an action/solution must be followed?

That is why (C) is correct because it states this assumption as true - this problem of the supply and demand imbalance is actually occurring. Specifically, that demand exceeds supply.

To negate this: actual human demand does not exceed the earths sustainable supply. This would make the entire argument about imbalance moot making the "solution" irrelevant because it attacks the assumption. While (B) does something entirely different.

To negate (b): it is NOT possible to determine the limitations of the earths sustainable supply.

I think (b) is tricky to eliminate because it does seem relevant to the argument core. However, it actually just calls the premise of the argument into question, not the assumption.
 
christine.defenbaugh
Thanks Received: 585
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 536
Joined: May 17th, 2013
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce

by christine.defenbaugh Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:25 pm

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!
 
judaydaday
Thanks Received: 6
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 40
Joined: January 14th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce

by judaydaday Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:14 pm

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!


Thank you! This is definitely a different interpretation of the problem. So the key flaw here is that it assumes that there is only ONE solution.
 
jsdulberg
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 7
Joined: December 12th, 2014
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce

by jsdulberg Mon May 04, 2015 12:02 am

Thanks, Christine for clearly showing how (B) can be knocked out. To restate...

It doesn't matter if we can determine the limitations of earth's sustainable supply or not -- for even if we could -- it is given that potential demands made by humans is limitless, whereas supply is confined. Doesn't matter if we can quantify that bound or not, for demands made by humans could always surpass it. Thus (B) doesn't give us much.
 
deedubbew
Thanks Received: 4
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 106
Joined: November 24th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce

by deedubbew Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:44 am

What is a good way to approach this question to avoid being tricked into D? I missed the scope shift between potential and current. If this happens, is there still a way to figure out how to tackle this problem quickly?
Last edited by deedubbew on Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
deedubbew
Thanks Received: 4
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 106
Joined: November 24th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce to the problem of bal

by deedubbew Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:01 am

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!


D states that it's not possible to have balance. Thus there already is an "actual imbalance" that would lead to the conclusion.
 
Emmeline Ndongue
Thanks Received: 0
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 36
Joined: September 12th, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce

by Emmeline Ndongue Sun May 06, 2018 3:26 am

I think here people forget to mention the assumed definition of "balance". We talk about "balance" as in work-life "balance". If work+life=100% of one's life, for a person this (work, life) need not be (50%,50%). It could be (0%,100%), (90%,10%), etc. That is, work doesn't have to be of the same percentage as life to be in "balance".

In this question however, we assume that to reach the "balance", we have to make supply and demand close to each other. So here we are assuming that the "balance" for supply and demand is S=D. Nevertheless, the definition of this "balance" isn't clearly mentioned in the stimulus. That's why I do agree with sb above saying the ambiguity of the "imbalance".

Anyway, thinking too much on this question won't help during timed PT at all, IMO.......
 
JeremyK686
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 11
Joined: July 11th, 2020
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - Global ecological problems reduce

by JeremyK686 Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:04 pm

Analogy:
There’s a limited amount of apples. Demands made by humans to eat apples is potentially limitless. I have to make sure people curb their demands for the sake of conserving the apples!

Breakdown:
Imbalance of earth-supply and human-demand.
Earth is limited.
Humans are limitless.

Imbalanced unless human-demand decreases


Analysis:
H’s amount is limitless & E’s amount is limited.
But, to not exhaust E, H must be reduced.
H isn’t reduced, E will be exhausted.

This is assuming that H is a quantity threat to E’s resources.

This is expressed in answer (C): H must be more than E.

(A) This could weaken the argument. If it balances itself out, then why am I even having this argument? What’s the point of proposing any solutions if this situation is going to work itself out?

(B) Why does it matter for the limitations to be determined? I don’t think this idea of whether or not the limitations could possibly be determined is required for an argument about solutions and reductions of indefinite amounts.

(D) Achieving a balance between earth supply and human demand will never be possible. Achieving this balance might be possible someday. It might be, if we reduce human demand for earth supplies. In a sort of obversion/contrapositive, this comes out to be establish ‘achieving a balance’ which is flipped (X → Balance) in respect to the conclusion which states: (Balance → X)

(E) Similar to A.