Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S3 · Q25 Economist: In order to decide what

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Economist: In order to decide what to do about protecting the ozone layer, we must determine the monetary amount of the economic resources that we would willingly expend to protect it.

Conclusion (Thus)

The ozone layer has a calculable monetary value.

Intermediate Conclusion (so)

The ozone layer is demonstrably worth less than the total of all the world's economic resources.

Evidence

We wouldn't willingly expend an amount equal to all of the world's economic resources to protect the ozone layer.

Evaluate

Since there are two conclusions drawn, we should technically consider flaws with both reasoning moves.

Given that ... we wouldn't willingly spend all of the world's economic resources to protect the ozone layer,

Does that prove that ... the ozone layer is demonstrably worth less than the total of all the world's economic resources?

Not necessarily. Let's say the world has $50 trillion in resources. Yes, we wouldn't willingly spend $50 trillion to protect the ozone layer, but does that prove that the ozone layer is worth less than $50 trillion? Does "willingness" prove "worth"? Maybe I'm not willing to pay for fancy synthetic motor oil when I get an oil change, even though it would be worth doing so (because it will save me money in the long run).

So we could potentially argue that,

What about the move from the Intermediate Conclusion to the Main Conclusion?

Given that ... the ozone layer is worth less the total of all the world's economic resources,

Does that prove that ... the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value?

Definitely not. Even if the author successfully establishes that , that doesn't mean we can calculate its actual value.

Is it worth $1 million? $1 billion? $95.4 billion? Who knows?

Goal

Let's look for an answer saying, .

Or look for an answer saying,

(This is like erroneously arguing, )

25.

The reasoning in the economist's argument is flawed in that the argument

  1. uses evidence that the monetary

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This answer has the form, "Uses evidence that X in order to establish that Y", so we would want to check to see whether X matches the evidence and Y matches the conclusion. Did the evidence say that the monetary value of a particular natural resource is less than a certain amount? Yes, the Intermediate Conclusion (which is evidence for the Main Conclusion) said that the monetary value of the ozone layer is less than the combined total of the world's economic resources. Does the conclusion say that, "The value of any natural resource is less than the combined total of the world's economic resources"? No. The conclusion says, "The ozone layer has a calculable monetary value".

    12% picked this

  2. presupposes that the ozone layer

    Not Circular

    When we see language like, "the premise restates the conclusion" or "the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion", that means Circular reasoning. We know that Circular Reasoning is almost always wrong, so we would never "guess" it's circular. We'd be safer guessing elsewhere. This answer is saying that the author "presupposes claim X and then argues that claim as a conclusion", so it's saying he presupposed the conclusion. Also, it's not even true that the author ever assumed that the ozone layer should not be protected. And the conclusion sounds nothing like that. It's talking about whether the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value.

    2% picked this

  3. takes advantage of an ambiguity

    No Ambiguity

    When we see a term in "quotes" in a Flaw answer, we generally assume that answer is describing one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Equivocation, in which the argument uses the same term/concept multiple times but with very different meanings. This answer choice is almost always wrong. There was no ambiguity in how the environmentalists used the term "value". They argued that "the ozone layer does not have a calculable monetary value". It's very clear what is meant by that ... can you put a specific price tag or dollar amount on how much the ozone layer is worth? The author doesn't drift from that concept of 'value'.

    12% picked this

  4. Correct

    gives no reason for thinking

    Why this is right

    The common phrasings for Assumption answers on Flaw are presumes / takes for granted that X. Less common phrasings are fails to establish / gives no reason for thinking that X. Was this author assuming that "establishing an upper limit on a certain monetary value allows the calculation of that monetary value"? Yes. The author's reasoning was, "if the ozone layer is worth less than X, then the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value". Said differently, the author is assuming, "if the ozone layer has a clear upper limit of monetary value, then we can calculate the ozone layer's value". And as we were arguing, "just because we can set an upper limit on how much the ozone layer is worth doesn't mean that we can calculate how much it's worth". If we're going through our dead relative's estate and find an antique necklace, we could set an upper limit ("this is definitely worth less than one billion dollars") but that doesn't mean we can actually calculate how much that antique necklace is worth.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    69% picked this

  5. does not directly address the

    Contradicted: does not address

    This argument explicitly addresses the environmentalists' argument. They argued that "the ozone layer does not have a calculable monetary value", and the author's argument concludes by saying, "the ozone layer does have a calculable monetary value."

    5% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free