Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S1 · Q17 “Multiple use” refers to the

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

“Multiple use” refers to the utilization of natural resources in combinations that will best meet the present and future needs of the public.

Conclusion

Designating land as a wilderness area does not necessarily violate the multiple-use philosophy (i.e. designating land as wilderness could mean that we're utilizing that land in the way that best meets the present and future needs of the public).

Evidence (for)

Even if we don't get the most money from designating land wilderness, we can still get the greatest overall benefit from that site.

Evaluate

The soft language of "does not necessarily violate" in the conclusion means that the author is only claiming that there is at least one case in which designating land as a wilderness area would .

She is saying that designating the site as wilderness .

So if we were predicting a Linking assumption, it would sound like: provides greatest best meets present overall benefit → and future needs from site of the public

There is little bit of Weighing Tradeoffs happening as well within the evidence. Pro - greatest overall benefit Con - doesn't provide greatest dollar return

So the author is also assuming that "providing greatest overall benefit" is better than "providing greatest dollar return", when it comes to best meeting the present and future needs of the public.

Goal

Look for something essentially saying that if we're getting the most benefit from the site, then we're best meeting the present / future needs of the public.

17.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

  1. Natural resources should be used

    Out of Scope: should

    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".

    7% picked this

  2. Designating a wilderness area prevents

    Too Strong: prevents any

    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% picked this

  3. The present and future needs

    Too Strong: greater numbers

    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.

    8% picked this

  4. Correct

    The multiple-use philosophy takes into

    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% picked this

  5. The multiple-use philosophy holds that

    Unknown Comparison

    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% 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