“Multiple use” refers to the

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: should8% picked this

   Natural resources should be used in combinations that will most greatly benefit present

   Nothing in this paragraph has any normative language, like should / ought / good / bad / justified / unjustified. This argument is purely descriptive. I can say "Murdering a mailman does not necessarily mean you will get caught, for even though such murders often appear within view of exterior security cameras, one can still escape identification by wearing a mask". That doesn't mean I'm assuming "we should murder a mailman".

   8%
2. B

   Too Strong: prevents any4% picked this

   Designating a wilderness area prevents any exploitation of natural resources in

   The author never gets specific about any consequences of designating an areas as wilderness. She doesn't necessarily have to believe that such a designation prevents 100% of exploitation of natural resources. Technically, if a camper gets a backpacking permit and goes on a wilderness hike, she would be exploiting natural resources in the area when she finds some firewood for her campfire our fills up her canteen by the stream. Our author's argument isn't affected in any way by their being some exploitation of natural resources within a wilderness area.

   4%
3. C

   Too Strong: greater numbers9% picked this

   The present and future needs of the public would best be met by designating greater

   The author's conclusion is only saying "it's possible for a wilderness area to best meet the present and future needs of the public." Our author doesn't need to believe that this already happens or that this should happen more and more, just that it could happen at least once.

   9%
4. D

   Correct79% picked this

   The multiple-use philosophy takes into account some nonfinancial needs of

   Why this is right

   We wouldn't be able to predict this answer, but if we negate this answer, it definitely badly weakens the argument. If we say, "Hey, author -- the multiple-use philosophy only takes into account financial needs of the public", then the author's Evidence becomes irrelevant. He was saying, "Sure you won't get the greatest dollar return, but you'll get the greatest overall benefit. Thus it can still qualify as best meeting the needs of the public." But if multiple-use is defined strictly by the financial needs of the public, then the wilderness area he described would not qualify as best meeting the public's needs, since it does not provide the greatest financial return.

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

   79%
5. E

   Unknown Comparison1% picked this

   The multiple-use philosophy holds that the future needs of the public are more important than

   Nothing in this argument compares present needs to future needs, so we have no reason to think the author or the multiple-use philosophy has prioritized one over the other. Maybe we were thinking, "I suppose the author's evidence was saying that even though we don't get the greatest dollar return (present need), we get the greatest overall benefit (because our future needs include preserving biodiversity and wilderness), and the future need is more important than the present need." That is being too charitable and stretchy with the text. Multiple-use could think that present needs are equally important or even more important than future needs, and the author could still say, "Having a rad wilderness hiking and camping environment better meets the present needs of the public than does selling this land to a lumber company for more money."

   1%