Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S3 · Q20 Business owner: Although allowing coal mining

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

Business owner: Although allowing coal mining in our region would create new jobs, we can expect the number of jobs in the region to decrease overall if it is permitted.

Conclusion

If coal mining in our region is permitted, we can expect the number of jobs in the region to decrease.

Evidence

Many local businesses depend on the region's natural beauty, and the heavy industrial activity of the coal mining would force most of them to close.

Evaluate

We know that 90% of Role questions end with premises. The conclusion is almost always higher up in the argument, even the first idea.

They're asking us about the first half the last sentence, which is part of the support. (whenever we see two claims joined with "and", it will almost always be true that they're both premises).

Goal

Let's go to the answers looking for .

20.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the business owner's argument by the claim that many local businesses depend on the region's natural beauty?

Correct
It is given as direct
Why this is right
Man, I really don't like this correct answer or like defending it. Here's the charitable way I think LSAC would explain it: If we permit mining, we'll lose jobs (why should we believe that?) Because the heavy activity of coal mining would force many businesses to close. (why should we believe that?) Because many local businesses depend on our region's natural beauty. Seen that way, yes this answer correctly describes that our claim is direct evidence for the Intermediate Conclusion (coal mining would force many businesses to close), which is support for the overall conclusion (if we permit mining, the number of jobs will decrease overall). My problem with this answer is boring and grammatical, so feel free to stop reading here. :) The pronoun "them" in the final claim (coal mining would force most of them to close) refers to "the many local businesses that depend on our region's natural beauty". If we replace the pronoun "them" with its referent, then our 3-part argument sounds dumber: If we permit mining, we'll lose jobs (why?) Because the heavy activity of coal mining would force [the many businesses that depend on our region's natural beauty] to close. (why?) Because many local businesses depend on our region's natural beauty. In that version, it feels like the final part, the Premise, is totally unnecessary and adds nothing. And it feels weird to say that in the last sentence, the first claim is direct evidence for the second claim, when it feels more like the first claim is just the specific referent that plugs into the pronoun in the second claim. I think the way LSAC would probably defend this is that the "them" just refers to "many local businesses", so when we say coal mining would force most of them to close, it's saying coal mining would force most of these many businesses to close. Ultimately, the fact that it's doable for me to explain the 3-part hierarchy of this argument, even if I'm fudging the last claim a little by saying "coal mining would force [many businesses] to close", means that we should probably pick this answer, since "depending on natural beauty" helps to explain why "heavy industrial activity" would make a business close.
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
61% picked this
It is a premise that
Not Direct Support
Because LSAC wanted us to see this as a Premise -> Intermediate Conclusion -> Main Conclusion style argument, the claim we're being asked about is direct support for the Intermediate Conclusion and indirect support for the Main Conclusion. To consider whether it's direct support for the main conclusion, try the Why Test on the main conclusion and see if our claim sounds like a direct response: If we permit coal mining, jobs will go have a net decrease. why should we believe that ? Because, many local businesses depend on the region's natural beauty. Huh ? ? ? That wouldn't seem like an obviously germane reason why permitting mining would lead to fewer overall jobs. Since our claim doesn't seem to be any sort of direct reason why we should believe the conclusion, we can't call it direct support.
31% picked this
It is an intermediate conclusion
Wrong Role
This answer correctly says that our claim is part of the Support, but in calling it an Intermediate Conclusion, it means that our claim had its own support. Did it? why should we believe that "Many local businesses depend on natural beauty"? There's no reason ever given, so we can't call this an Intermediate Conclusion.
6% picked this
It is the overall conclusion
Wrong Role
The conclusion is that "if mining is permitted, local jobs will decrease".
1% picked this
It is a hypothesis for
Opposite
Opposite: not intended to support Out of Scope: hypothesis A hypothesis is a claim that tries to explain why a phenomenon has occurred or is occurring. This argument doesn't have any phenomenon that has happened / is happening, so the author isn't offering any causal hypotheses. Also, "many local businesses depend on natural beauty" has no evidence explicitly offered. why should we believe that "Many local businesses depend on natural beauty"? There's no reason ever given.
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