Logical Reasoning

PT11 · S4 · Q21 When the supply of a given resource

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

When the supply of a given resource dwindles, alternative technologies allowing the use of different resources develop, and demand for the resource that was in short supply naturally declines.

Conclusion

We can never run out of important natural resources.

Evidence (because)

When the supply of a given resource dwindles, alternative technologies develop that allow the use of different resources, causing demand for the dwindling resource to decline.

The existing supplies of that resource then satisfy whatever demand remains.

Evaluate

The conclusion makes a bold prediction that is clearly way too strong. It seems likely that at some point we could run out of some important natural resource.

The author will object,

What can we say in response? Maybe we can't find another resource for certain tasks, or the other eligible resources are already in low supply because they're being used for other things.

The argument is also making a bit of a Past = Future assumption, thinking that But maybe something important is different about past vs. future.

Goal

We need a way to argue that this potential solution the author envisions won't always work out, and that we COULD run out of an important resource.

21.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion?

The masts and hulls of
No Impact
Any answer dealing with those three random examples is highly suspect, since they weren't a crucial part of the author's argument. This is also incredibly weak ("some" = at least one), and the author allowed for the idea that there would be some continued use of the old resource.
7% picked this
There are considerably fewer mules
No Impact
Any answer dealing with those three random examples is highly suspect, since they weren't a crucial part of the author's argument. The author allowed for the idea that there would be some continued use of the old resource, using whatever remaining supply there is. It's very compatible with his argument to say, "yes mule supply is lower today, but mule demand is MUCH lower than before (now that we have cybertrucks), so we're doing fine in terms of sufficient mules." This gives us no way to argue that in the future we might run out of an important resource.
19% picked this
The cost of some new
No Impact
The statement about high costs for new technologies doesn't refute the possibility that these technologies will eventually succeed in reducing demand for dwindling resources. The argument is not about initial costs but about the ultimate sustainability of important resources.
3% picked this
Dwindling supplies of a natural
Weaker Impact
This answer speaks to a potential consequence (increased cost due to dwindling supply) but doesn't directly challenge the argument that alternative technologies will reduce demand and prevent resource exhaustion over the long term. If anything, the fact that scarcity drives up the price means that people will start using that resource less and inventors will be incentivized to innovate an alternate to that resource.
11% picked this
Correct
The biological requirements for substances
Why this is right
This basically gives us a way to argue that we might, at some point, run out of an important resource. If we will always need clean air and clean water, and there's no way technology is changing that, then we could potentially run out of an important resource (like clean air or clean water) that we couldn't invent our way around. The author was counting on "alternative technologies that allow us to use a different resource, when a resource is in short supply", and this is making it sound like there would be no technology that would allow us to use an alternative to clean air or clean water, because we have biological requirements for THOSE specific resources and we can't change our body's need for them via technology. By contrast, we don't NEED flints to kill prey or NEED mules to move heavy objects. We can find other resources to address those needs. But we can't invent a way to not need clean air/water.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
61% 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