#13 - The solution to any environmental problem that is not

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (A)

In this stimulus, we are given several conditional statements:

1) The solution to any non-government-caused serious environmental problem can only lay in major consumer habit changes (MC). This can be diagrammed as follows:
SG MC

2) These major changes will only occur with economic enticement (EE):
MC EE

3) Therefore (i.e., in conclusion), few problems of any kind will be solved without enticement. In other words, if there is no enticement, not many problems will be solved:
EE many problems solved. (contrapositive: many problems solved EE)

The leap between the premises is subtle, but important: The argument begins with the premise that economic enticement is needed to bring about consumer changes necessary to solve non-government-caused problems. The author then jumps to the conclusion that without these economic enticements, few environmental problems will be solved (whether or not government-caused). When we notice a leap like this one and are asked to justify the conclusion, we should seek the answer choice which fills in this gap and allows for the conclusion to be properly drawn.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The premises in the stimulus only offer information about non-government-caused problems. If we assume, as this answer choice provides, that most problems fall into this category (of non-government-caused problems), then the premises in the stimulus justify the author’s conclusion.

This answer choice can be diagrammed as follows:
Major problem Not Due to Government

If we add this to the premises from the stimulus, we arrive at the following logic chain:
Major problem Not Due to Government SG MC EE

In other words, we can now properly conclude that most major problems will indeed require economic enticement, which is another way to phrase the conclusion in the stimulus.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice concerns environmental problems that are the result of government mismanagement, and the feasibility of their solutions. The stimulus deals with environmental problems that are not the result of government mismanagement. Since these are entirely different sets of problems, this choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This choice concerns the feasibility of offering economic enticements, but the stimulus only concerns whether it is necessary to make enticements. Note: A necessary condition can be impossible; this would not prove that the condition was not necessary, it would merely prove that the sufficient condition could not occur. This choice does not address the gap in the stimulus and is therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This choice is not a supporter assumption; it addresses the proportion of non-government-caused environmental problems that are major. This is not relevant to the discussion, and it does not provide any required link between the variables in the stimulus.

Answer choice (E): The argument in the stimulus does not concern whether changes in consumer habits are sufficient to solve the most serious problems, but rather whether major changes are necessary to solve those problems, so this answer choice does not reflect an assumption required by the argument. Furthermore, this choice does not address the leap in the stimulus from non-government-induced problems to serious problems in general.

[8scn]

Hi, how did one arrive at A as the answer? I diagrammed the stimulus as:

Premise: SEP (solution to any environmental problem not the result of gov’t) --> CCH (change consumer habits) --> EE (econonmically inticing)

Conclusion: SEP (solve ecological problems) --> EE

Prephase: SEP --> SEP, or CCH --> SEP

[Adam Tyson]

I think what's missing from your initial analysis is that the conclusion actually introduces a new term in our conditional chain, that of SERIOUS ecological problems. If we want to prove something about the serious problems, we have to add them to our chain.

I think my chain would look more like this:

Not GM --> MC --> EE (If not gov't mismanagement then major changes, then economically enticing).

One way to approach sorting the losers and contenders here is to realize that the correct answer must have something to do with serious ecological problems, and that allows you to eliminate B, C and D. Once you've done that, you may see that E is an opposite answer, leaving you with A as the only choice left.

Adam Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[ortegas500]

Hi,

I just finished taking the October 2004 test, and as I was reviewing the incorrect answers. On section two (Logical Reasoning) of the test question number 13, the correct answer choice is A. I am a bit confused of why this is the correct answer, I was wondering if you would be able to explain how answer A is the best answer choice for the question.

Thanks!

[David Boyle]

Hi,

I just finished taking the October 2004 test, and as I was reviewing the incorrect answers. On section two (Logical Reasoning) of the test question number 13, the correct answer choice is A. I am a bit confused of why this is the correct answer, I was wondering if you would be able to explain how answer A is the best answer choice for the question.

Thanks!

Hello ortegas500,

Problems like this can often be solved fairly mechanically, by seeing where chains link together. The first sentence can be diagrammed,

slash gmm mc (if it's not the result of government mismanagement, it needs major changes in consumer habits).

The next sentence can be diagrammed,

mc ee (major changes need economic enticement)

And the last sentence,

slash few ee (if not-a-few, which may be close to "many", ecological problems are solved, that'll need economic enticement).

But there's sort of a bait-and-switch: the first sentence talked about "any environmental problem that is not the result of government mismanagement", and the last sentence talked about "serious ecological problems" in general, not addressing govt. mismanagement. So there's a missing link, and the correct answer should address it by mentioning govt. mismanagement, which answers A, B, and D do.
Choosing among those three answers, A is the best, since it basically says, "Most [or many] ecological problems AREN'T from govt. mismanagement." That chimes with what the last sentence of the stimulus says, since if a lot of ecological problems WERE from govt. mismanagement, then economic enticement wouldn't necessarily help in solving them, since the stimulus is largely about enticement helping solve problems that don't relate to govt. mismanagement.

Hope this helps,
David

[emilysnoddon]

For this question, I was debating between answer choice A and B. I thought that A sounded more like an assumption the argument assumed and felt like B was stronger and therefore more suited for the Justify the Conclusion question. Furthermore, I felt that B, if true, knocks out the problem of A. If no environmental problems that stem from gov mismanagement have solutions that are economically feasible then few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing.

Can you help me see where I went wrong?

Thank you,

Emily

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Emily,

The discussion above should be sufficient to put you on the right track, but just in case some of it was unclear, here's how I'd approach the problem. First, let's identify the structural elements in the argument:

• Premises: Solution to a problem that did NOT result from gov't mismanagement Change in Habits Changes are $ enticing
  
  Conclusion: Solution to ecological problems Changes are $ enticing

To justify the conclusion, we need to connect the sufficient condition in the premise chain with the sufficient condition in the conclusion. If "ecological problems" are the same as those "problems that did NOT result from gov't mismanagement," then the conclusion would be properly justified. This is precisely what answer choice (A) states: few serious eco. problems are the result of gov't mismanagement, which is the same as saying that they generally AREN'T the result of such mismanagement.

You're correct in that answer choice (A) also serves the function of an assumption: it is both sufficient, and necessary, for the conclusion to be logically valid.

Answer choice (B), meanwhile, is entirely outside the scope of the argument, because it is about problems that DO stem from gov't mismanagement. The entire argument was about problems that do NOT stem from such mismanagement. Consequently, (B) has no bearing on the validity of the conclusion.

Hope this helps!

[emilysnoddon]

Thank you for your response! I read the above discussions but I wasnt connecting that talking about what does stem from government mismanagement was different from what we were trying to establish. Your response helped a lot though so thank you!

[olafimihan.k]

Hello Powerscore!

I think I may have negated the last sentence in the stimulus wrong.

"Few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing"

My negated version of this was "Few serious ecological problems will NOT be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing."

Is this correct, or should the correct way just change "few" into "many" like what was done in the previous explanation?

Thanks in advance!

[nicholaspavic]

Hi olaf,

Great job of recognizing that the unless statement requires negation. And yes, we are saying that you should negate "few" here in order to effectively negate the sentence. But also don't forget to convert it into a conditional statement and get rid of that "unless." So in other words translate it to "if not few (I.E. MANY) will be solved then there is economic enticement." Otherwise, I think that you did this correctly.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!