Q8 - Some environmentalists question the prudence

[noah]

I'm preparing to teach this, so figured I'd post an explanation for this inference question.

We're told two facts:

1. Some environmentalists question whether we should exploit the environment (surprised?). If there's no environment left, how will you get value out of it?

2. Many environmentalists think we shouldn't destroy the environment b/c it has intrinsic value - even if preserving it doesn't make economic sense.

The answers need to be knocked down!

(A) is not supported. We only know that some environmentalists think it’s imprudent. Plus, the final sentence suggests the economic costs of not exploiting might be high.

(B) CORRECT. "Intrinsic value" is definitely meant as noneconomic, especially considering that value stands apart from assigning value based on economic costs, as we learn in the second part of that sentence.

(C) Most? We only know about some and many.

(D) is off - how do we know these environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification?

(E) Sound justification? We never learn if anything is sound. For all we know, the environmentalist is dead wrong! Compare this to (B), which simply refers to the environmentalist's position, but does not assign it any right/wrong value.

[mxl392]

I believe B is wrong because of the first sentence:

"...there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist."

It seems like the environmentalist is saying that if we make sure that these things continue to exist, then there will be economic benefit.

It's not appealing to non-economic justification.

I feel like none of these answer choices are right.

[noah]

I believe B is wrong because of the first sentence:

"...there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist."

It seems like the environmentalist is saying that if we make sure that these things continue to exist, then there will be economic benefit.

It's not appealing to non-economic justification.

I feel like none of these answer choices are right.

Yes, that is what we can seem to learn from the first sentence. And that is what is thought by "some environmentalists."

However, the next sentence gives us another view that some environmentalists hold. That one is what (B) is based on. We only need the view to held by "some."

Make sense?

[Nina]

just have a quick question: are "some" and "many" replaceable? seems like the "some" in answer B refers to "many environmentalists" in the stimulus.

Thanks!

[sumukh09]

just have a quick question: are "some" and "many" replaceable? seems like the "some" in answer B refers to "many environmentalists" in the stimulus.

Thanks!

Yeah, some and many are interchangeable quantifiers. Both mean at least one and could include all.

[noah]

just have a quick question: are "some" and "many" replaceable? seems like the "some" in answer B refers to "many environmentalists" in the stimulus.

Thanks!

Yeah, some and many are interchangeable quantifiers. Both mean at least one and could include all.

Agreed!

If many people like bananas, can we say that some people do? Why yes we can!

[yli.angela]

In choice E, is the wording, "sound...justification" the only reason it can't be correctly inferred?

In other words, if the question had read, "Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a non-economic justification for doing so," would that have made it a correct inference?

I feel like such a small, negligible qualifier shouldn't make a difference. LSAT correct answers often have re-wordings of the stimulus, for example, "question the prudence of exploiting features" is a rewording of "questioning the defensibility of exploiting features", right? So why is that acceptable and "sound justification" (in choice E) vs. "justification" (in choice B) not acceptable?

[noah]

In choice E, is the wording, "sound...justification" the only reason it can't be correctly inferred?

In other words, if the question had read, "Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a non-economic justification for doing so," would that have made it a correct inference?

I feel like such a small, negligible qualifier shouldn't make a difference. LSAT correct answers often have re-wordings of the stimulus, for example, "question the prudence of exploiting features" is a rewording of "questioning the defensibility of exploiting features", right? So why is that acceptable and "sound justification" (in choice E) vs. "justification" (in choice B) not acceptable?

Good question.

The issue goes deeper than small words. Do we know that the environmentalist is right? (B) carefully refers to the environmentalist's argument without suggesting whether it's right, while (E) and your re-written (E) both suggest that the environmentalist's position is correct.

Make sense?

[yli.angela]

It does, thanks!

[jones.mchandler]

I got tripped up on B because it seemed that the stimulus was defining something with intrinsic value in economic terms, because of the latter half of the second sentence "...even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so." I guess "noneconomic" means "doing something that does not make economic sense"?

[maryadkins]

I think that "economic costs of not doing so" just means even if it's going to cost more to keep it than it is to destroy it, we should keep it because its value is intrinsic. In other words, the second half of the sentence is independent of the value in the first half. It's just a qualification, or an elaboration if you want to think of it that way: EVEN IF X [expensive], we should Y [not destroy], because Z [intrinsic value].

[gaheexlee]

Another quick tip that may be useful for others that I used for this argument:

The stimulus is simply quoting the opinions of others: "some environmentalists..." "many environmentalists..."

Therefore, a correct answer to a MBT question like this cannot state something matter of factly like (A) or (E) does. Everything about this stimulus and question must be in reference to the main subject- in this case, the environmentalists.

Someone correct me if that's wrong but I remember reading this trick in a few of my lsat prep books!

[ying_yingjj]

English is not my native language, so I apologize in advance if my question appears too basic or not worth your time.

I am having a hard time understanding the first sentence of the statement.
"Some environmentalists QUESTION (kind of disagreeing? cast doubt on?) the prudence of exploiting features of the environment,"

I think the word "question" here is challenging the probity of the "prudence", is my understanding correct?

If so, then the first sentence means:
Some env. are challenging about the idea whether exploiting features of the environment is really prudent or not. These env. actually think it is NOT prudent to exploit the features of the environment.

But then, how these environmentalists are led to think about the second sentence?

The first group of environmentalists think:
Exploiting features of environmentalists is not prudent -> bc no eco benefits from forests etc. no longer exist) -> so these environmentalists are thinking that we should not exploit environment.

Then the 2nd group of environmentalists think:"No! Nature has its own valley (like the beauty of nature), although protecting the nature costs more than destroying it, still, destroying it will be wrong, so let's not destroy (exploit) the nature.

I am very confused.

[gaheexlee]

English is not my native language, so I apologize in advance if my question appears too basic or not worth your time.

I am having a hard time understanding the first sentence of the statement.
"Some environmentalists QUESTION (kind of disagreeing? cast doubt on?) the prudence of exploiting features of the environment,"

I think the word "question" here is challenging the probity of the "prudence", is my understanding correct?

If so, then the first sentence means:
Some env. are challenging about the idea whether exploiting features of the environment is really prudent or not. These env. actually think it is NOT prudent to exploit the features of the environment.

But then, how these environmentalists are led to think about the second sentence?

The first group of environmentalists think:
Exploiting features of environmentalists is not prudent -> bc no eco benefits from forests etc. no longer exist) -> so these environmentalists are thinking that we should not exploit environment.

Then the 2nd group of environmentalists think:"No! Nature has its own valley (like the beauty of nature), although protecting the nature costs more than destroying it, still, destroying it will be wrong, so let's not destroy (exploit) the nature.

I am very confused.

Your interpretation of the first sentence is correct! The first group of environmentalists are in fact saying people shouldn't exploit the environment because it's not economically worth destroying nature.

The 2nd group of environmentalists aren't necessarily saying "No!" to the first group. Rather, the 2nd group is saying "We agree that the environment shouldn't be exploited. But we think the reason why we should protect nature isn't because it has economic worth, but because it's valuable in its own right."

Take the following example:

10 years ago, I bought a pokemon card for $1. I'm now thinking of selling it. My friend tells me to not sell it though because since no one cares about pokemons anymore, the value of the card is still only $1. So there's no economic benefits to be gained in selling this card.

Another friend ALSO says I shouldn't sell the pokemon card. But this second friend says I shouldn't sell it because it's a precious symbol of my childhood so it has inherent value. Because this friend considers an item's sentimental value to be more important than its economic value, even if the pokemon card is now worth $30, this friend will probably tell me to still not sell the card.

So both friends don't want me to sell the card. But while the first friend uses economics as the justification, the second friend uses a different reason.

If we were to answer the question "which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage" for the example I gave above, we can say that "at least one friend appeals to a noneconomic justification to challenge my consideration of selling the pokemon card." That's answer choice (B).

Hope that made some sense!

[cyt5015]

Clearly, doing so means preserving the environment not exploiting nor destroying it; however, there is no such word "protect" or "preserve" for us to referential phrase from. It is really odd to use "so" here.