Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT120 S3 Q10 Explanation

Naturalist: To be dependable, the accounting

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsMost Supported

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.

Stimulus

Naturalist: To be dependable, the accounting framework used by national economists to advise the government must take into account all of our nation’s assets; but the current accounting framework used by our national natural resources, which are clearly assets.

What this question is testing

Most Supported

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question
10.

The naturalist’s statements, if true, most strongly support which one of

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: indifference1% picked this

    Economists’ indifference toward the destruction of natural resources will lead policymakers to

    We have no text that refers to economists being indifferent toward the destruction of natural resources. The fact that there isn't a line item in their accounting framework for natural resources doesn't mean they're indifferent to when nature is destroyed.

  2. Extreme Disagree Position14% picked this

    Naturalists and economists disagree about whether natural resources

    To disagree over that claim, one side has to believe that "natural resources have no value". The economists who don't calculate the nation's natural resources within their accounting framework might think the natural resources don't have monetary value, but they could still believe they have cultural or aesthetic value.

  3. Correct79% picked this

    The accounting framework used by national economists is

    Why this is right

    This is what we were looking for: current framework is not dependable. Dependable and reliable are interchangeable synonyms in this context. Economists don't take into account the asset of government-owned natural resources into their framework. According to the rule, you can't be dependable unless you take into account all assets. So this framework isn't dependable / reliable.

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

  4. Too Strong: vital / every4% picked this

    Natural resources are a vital economic asset for

    This paragraph only speaks about this nation. We don't have any way to support that 100% of nations have natural resources that are a vital economic asset. We don't even know that they're a vital asset to this nation we're hearing about. We only know they are an asset.

  5. Too Strong: any2% picked this

    Changes in the environment have a value that is not represented in

    We only heard that the current accounting framework of this nation is leaving out natural resources as one of the nation's assets. We can't generalize about what is true for any accounting framework. Maybe other frameworks are different / better.

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