Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT119 S1 P1 Q3 Explanation

Definition of Prosperity

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsAuthor OpinionSociety

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Economists have long defined prosperity in terms of monetary value, gauging a given nation’s prosperity solely on the basis of the total monetary value of the goods and services produced annually. However, critics point out that defining prosperity solely as a function of monetary value is questionable since it fails to recognize quality of life may in fact initiate economic activity that, by the economists’ measure, bolsters prosperity.

It can also happen that communities seeking to increase their prosperity as measured strictly in monetary terms may damage their quality of life and their environment. The situation of one rural community illustrates this point: residents of the community value the local timber industry as a primary source of income, and they the harvest limitations would lower their wages or even cause the loss of jobs.

But critics of the economists’ view argue that this view of the situation overlooks a crucial consideration. Without the harvest limitations, they say, the land on which the community depends would be seriously damaged. Moreover, they point out that the residents themselves cite the abundance of natural beauty as one of the will thus lose much more—even understood in monetary terms—if the proposed harvest limits are not implemented.

Economists respond by arguing that to be a useful concept, prosperity must be defined in easily quantifiable terms, and that prosperity thus should not include difficult-to-measure values such as happiness or environmental health. But this position dodges the issue—emphasizing ease of calculation causes one to disregard substantive issues that directly influence real and quantifiable measure, but it is a poor substitute for an accurate appraisal of literary merit.

What this question is testing

Author Opinion

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
3.

Based on the information in the passage, the author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements regarding the weakening

Answer choices

  1. Opposite8% picked this

    Paradoxically, the weakening of the ozone layer actually contributes to environmental health and

    The author was saying, "Paradoxically, the degradation of environmental health represented by the weakened ozone layer actually contributes to economic prosperity".

  2. Unsupported Comparison3% picked this

    The environmental effects of this problem are likely to occur more gradually than

    The first paragraph gives us now way to compare how gradually effects are likely to occur.

  3. Out of Scope: distracted attention19% picked this

    The appearance of prosperity that results from this problem has directed attention away

    At no point is the author saying, "There needs to be more attention paid to the ozone layer! People have neglected this environmental problem, because they saw the appearance of prosperity." The author is saying, "the damage caused to the ozone layer will result in prosperity, as defined monetarily by economists, but it won't result in prosperity, as defined by our common sense about whether it's prosperous to live in a world with a busted up ozone layer."

  4. Correct68% picked this

    This problem should be regarded primarily as threatening rather than contributing

    Why this is right

    This is just capturing the Author's Intent in citing the ozone layer as an example. The author was trying to illustrate the position that "defining prosperity solely in terms of money would fail to recognize other kinds of values, such as environmental health". The ozone layer is an example where you could have a detraction to environmental health while having an enhancement in terms of money. If we analyzed prosperity purely in financial terms, we would come to the wrong conclusion that the damage to the ozone layer increases prosperity. The author's point is that it doesn't increase prosperity when people have to spend money to cope with ecological damage.

    Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  5. Unsupported Causal Relationship Offends Common Sense2% picked this

    This problem has resulted in part from the failure of economists to recognize it in

    The author is not blaming economists for having failed to recognize the early stages of the ozone layer's decline. Why would economists even be monitoring the ozone layer for early signs of decline? Isn't that more the job of an environmental scientist?

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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