Logical Reasoning

PT8 · S4 · Q21 So-called environmentalists have argued

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

So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns.

Main Conclusion (therefore / should)

Their claim that the GLD would interfere with migration patterns should be dismissed without consideration.

Intermediate Conclusion (indicates that)

Their expressed concern for bird migration patterns is nothing but a mask for an antidevelopment, antiprogress agenda.

Evidence

These so-called environmentalists have objected on environmental grounds to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years.

Evaluate

The author sees a pattern of these people always objecting to development. From this, the author leaps to the conclusion that their stated environmental concerns about Golden Lake are insincere. The argument is vulnerable to the possibility that these objectors genuinely believe that all of these proposals pose environmental harm. To conclude they’re just anti-development, the author needs to assume that not all those objections were driven exclusively by real environmental worries.

Goal

Look for an answer supplying a missing link, , or ruling out an objection, like .

21.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?

  1. Correct

    Not every development proposal opposed

    Why this is right

    This has the lovable Defender "not", so let's negate this and see if it weakens the argument. If we negate (A) into “Every proposal they opposed was opposed because they believed it threatened the environment". Yes that definitely weakens. We’d lose any basis for saying that concern for birds is just a mask for anti-development motives.Their past record of objections was always based on sincere concern for the environment, not just a determination to thwart development for its own sake.

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

    60% picked this

  2. People whose real agenda is

    Too Strong (always)

    This universal claim is unnecessary; the argument only cares about these particular so-called environmentalists, not everyone with anti-development leanings.

    15% picked this

  3. Anyone who opposes unrestricted development

    Irrelevant Relationship Too Strong: anyone

    This is a conditional idea, so we can ask ourselves if the author ever made a reasoning move like, "If you oppose unrestricted development, then I know you're an opponent of progress". No, she did not. She made a reasoning move like this: "If you have objected to virtually every development proposal in recent years, then you have an antidevelopment / antiprogress agenda". Notice that this form of trap answer takes two terms from the same claim (antidevelopment / antiprogress) and tries to invent a relationship between them. If an argument concluded, "Thus, Tom is a liar and a cheat", this sort of trap answer would say "All liars are cheats".

    3% picked this

  4. The council has no reason

    Out of Scope

    If we negate this and say that the council DOES have some non-bird-related reason to be concerned about the GLD, that doesn't weaken the argument, because it doesn't say anything about whether the environmentalists' concerns are genuine or disguise an agenda.

    10% picked this

  5. When people say that they

    Too Strong: almost always

    The author didn’t generalize about all environmental arguments made by anyone. The argument specifically targets this group’s motives, so a sweeping claim isn’t needed.

    12% 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