Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S2 · Q16 Environmentalist: Many people prefer to

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

Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live in regions of natural beauty.

Conclusion (Thus)

Governmentally mandated environmental protection in regions of natural beauty can help those regions' economies overall, even if such protection harms some older local industries.

Evidence

Many people want to live in regions with natural beauty. Such regions often get an influx of new residents, and as the population grows it encourages businesses to relocate to those regions.

Evaluate

There is a New Term in the conclusion: governmentally mandated environmental protection. We're drawing a conclusion about this thing, even though the author's argument didn't tell us anything about this thing, other than that it might harm some older local industries (which would weaken the author's conclusion).

So it's a very high percentage bet that the correct answer will refer to this. The author seems to be assuming that without the mandated environmental protection, the natural beauty would be spoiled in some way that would fail to encourage as many new residents and businesses to move in.

And it's assuming that with the mandated protection in place, the natural beauty is better preserved, and thus that new residents and businesses move in, which overall is a net gain for the region's economy.

Goal

Look for an answer affirming the author's internal logic (the mandated protection helps to preserve the natural beauty, which then acts as a magnet for more residents and businesses, which then helps the local economy overall).

Or look for an answer ruling out an objection (like mandated protection does not raise local taxes and prohibit activities in ways that have a net negative effect on the economy).

16.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the environmentalist's argument depends?

  1. Regions of natural beauty typically

    Weakens

    The author's conclusion is arguing that governmentally mandated protection helps the economies (presumably by protecting the natural beauty that entices new residents and businesses to relocate there). But this answer is going the opposite direction, saying that the region is doing a great job enticing new residents only until this government protection comes on the scene. This answer makes it sound like the government protection actually hurts the local economies.

    1% picked this

  2. The economies of most regions

    Too Strong: most / primarily

    Since this answer has that lovable Necessary Assumption quality of ruling out an idea with "not", we can negate it and see if it weakens. At first, it definitely does seem to weaken if we say that, the economies of most of these regions are based primarily on industries that would be harmed by government environmental protection. But, the conclusion is only saying that government protection can help the economy overall, not that it always would, not that it would in most cases. So the conclusion could still be fine, even if governmentally mandated protection was harmful to the economies of most regions of natural beauty. The other issue is that even in the regions whose economies are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by this mandated protection, the author still thinks that harm caused to the older local industries would be outweighed by the economic benefit of new residents and businesses moving into those regions.

    40% picked this

  3. If governmentally mandated environmental protection

    Too Strong: primarily If-Conclusion

    Any time we see an answer structured as "If [the conclusion]", we know it's wrong. The conclusion should only appear on the right side of the arrow. (It's fine for an answer to say, "If [not-conclusion]", because by contraposing that you would get the conclusion on the right side of the arrow). Also, this just doesn't make much sense. The author thinks the primary way that government environmental protection helps an economy is by preserving the region's natural beauty. The natural beauty is what encourages people to move into the region, not the mandated government environmental protection.

    6% picked this

  4. Voluntary environmental protection usually does

    Out of Scope: voluntary protection

    This argument never mentions voluntary protection and doesn't make any comparative or prescriptive claims that would make a comparison to other types of environmental protection relevant. He's just saying governmentally mandated protection helps the economy. It doesn't weaken the truth of that claim if voluntary protection also helps the economy (even if it helps it to an equal or greater degree).

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    A factor harmful to some

    Why this is right

    This answer disguises its reference to the New Term (governmentally mandated environmental protection) by alluding to it as "a factor harmful to some older local industries". This answer has the lovable ruling out "not" quality that makes us slow down, negate, and ask ourselves if the negation would weaken. Governmentally mandated environmental protection in a region does necessarily discourage other businesses from relocation to that region. This would badly weaken the story the author is selling. He thinks that the harm done to older local industries by this protection would be outweighed economically by the boon of having residents and businesses relocate there. But if the mandated environmental protection were a deterrent that kept businesses from relocating, then the it would provide economic harm without providing an eventual economic benefit.

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

    49% 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