Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S2 · Q13 The solution to any environmental

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

The solution to any environmental problem that is not the result of government mismanagement can only lie in major changes in consumer habits.

Conclusion

Solutions not made → most serious ecological economically enticing problems not solved

Evidence

Solving any problem → major changes not the result of consumer habits government mismanagement

Major changes → solutions economically consumer habits enticing

Evaluate

The "as a result" tells us which claim is the Conclusion. All three claims are conditional. We need to know how to deal with these common trigger words: - only / only if (put it on the right) - unless (put the opposite on the left -- "if not")

In Sufficient Assumption, we know that any New Idea that appears in the conclusion must appear in the correct answer. The concept of "few/most serious ecological problems" only appears in the conclusion, so it will have to be in the correct answer.

"Few" is one of the three main negative words that we see on LSAT. When we see these negative words, we want to perform a Negative to Positive translation.

No A's are B = All A's are ~B Few A's are B = Most A's are ~B Not all A's are B = Some A's are ~B

We can see that "economically enticing solutions" and "major changes in consumer habits" are each mentioned twice. On Assumption questions, generally if a term is mentioned twice, it won't show up in the correct answer. Being mentioned twice usually means that you've already served a role in linking two things.

So if we were lost and trying to fake a fuzzy guess, we'd expect the correct answer to talk about "few/most serious ecological problems" and relate it to the only other idea that is mentioned only once: the solution to any problem that is not the result of government mismanagement.

If we're being more savvy than that, we're taking the conditional conclusion and stretching out the trigger and the outcome, so that we can see what internal pieces of that Logic Chain have been provided in the Evidence.

CONCLUSION

Solutions most serious not economically ---------------------> ecological problems enticing ~solved

The evidence gave us a three idea chain, starting from "solutions not econ enticing".

EVIDENCE

Solutions no major problems not economically → changes → not result enticing consumer of government habits ~solved

This illustrates the gap we have:

Goal

Look for an answer saying

13.

The conclusion drawn in the argument above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Correct

    Few serious ecological problems are

    Why this is right

    If we perform our translation, "Few A's are B = Most A's are ~B" this is saying that Most serious eco problems are not the result of govt mismanagement which is what we were looking for. Conversationally, once we're told that few serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement, we know from the stimulus that the solution to most serious ecological problems will require major changes in consumer habits. Making consumers change their habits in major ways requires that our solutions are economically enticing. So, solving most serious ecological problems will require that we make our solutions economically enticing.

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

    47% picked this

  2. No environmental problems that stem

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: do result from govt. Unrelated to Goal Since this answer choice doesn't talk about "few/most serious ecological problems" (the New Idea from our conclusion), it is functionally hopeless, so we don't really need to read it. If we do read it, this answer is doing the super common Fake Opposite trap you see on Assumption questions. If we say "tall people love their mom", the answer will illicitly accuse the author of assuming "small people don't love their mom". We were told that "problems that don't result from government mismanagement will require solutions that are economically feasible", so this answer is just flipping that to say "problems that do result of government mismanagement will not have solutions that are economically feasible".

    4% picked this

  3. Major changes in consumer habits

    Unrelated to Goal

    Since this answer choice doesn't talk about "few/most serious ecological problems" (the New Idea from our conclusion), it is functionally hopeless, so we don't really need to read it. If we do read it, this answer is trying to appeal to us by feeling like a valid Necessary Assumption. Since it feels like the author is implicitly suggesting that we'll need to make major changes in consumer habits economically enticing, this answer is calling out an Assumption that such a thing is even feasible.

    16% picked this

  4. Most environmental problems that are

    Reversed Most Statement

    We needed to know that most major ecological problems are not the result of government mismanagement. This is telling us that most problems that are not the result government mismanagement are major ecological problems Most A's are B ≠ Most B's are (most Senators are men ≠ most men are Senators) This answer was definitely worth looking into, but technically it still doesn't tell us about our New Idea in the conclusion: few/most serious ecological problems We specifically need the few/most attached to "serious/major ecological problems".

    21% picked this

  5. Few serious ecological problems can

    Wrong Direction

    This tells us that most serious ecological problems can't be solved by major changes in consumer habits. We're trying to prove a conclusion that "most serious ecological problems require economically enticing solutions". The only way we have to establish that something requires economically enticing solutions is if we first establish that something requires major changes in consumer habits. In other words, it would be a correct answer to be told Most serious ecological problems require major changes in consumer habits. This answer, meanwhile, tells us that Most serious ecological problems cannot be solved by major changes in consumer habits. So this answer is not giving us an idea we can use to derive the conclusion.

    12% 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