#8- Some environmentalists question the prudence of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must be true. The correct answer choice is (B)

This is a very interesting stimulus because the author repeats the opinions
of others and never makes an assertion of his or her own. When a stimulus
contains only the opinions of others, then in a Must Be True question you can
eliminate any answer choice that makes a flat assertion without
reference to those opinions.

For example, answer choice (A) makes a factual assertion (“It is...”) that
cannot be backed up by the author’s survey of opinions in the
stimulus—the opinions do not let us know the actual facts of the situation.
Answer choice (E) can be eliminated for the very same reason.

Answer choices (B), (C), and (D) each address the environmentalists,
and thus each is initially a Contender.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. The second sentence
references the views of many environmentalists (and “many”
automatically implies “some”), who claim that “nature has intrinsic value”
(for example, beauty). This view is the noneconomic justification cited by
the answer choice.

This answer can be a bit tricky because of the convoluted language the
test makers use. “Questioning the defensibility of exploiting features
of the environment” is a needlessly complex phrase. A more direct
manner of writing that phrase would be “attacking the exploitation of the
environment.”

To increase the difficulty of this problem, this language was then repeated
in answer choices (C) and (D).

Answer choice (C): We only know the opinions of “some” and “many”
environmentalists, and these numbers do not provide enough information
to discern the views of “most” environmentalists, which is the term used
in the answer choice (while “many” implies “some,” it does not imply
“most.” This point will be covered in more detail in a later chapter).

Answer choice (D): This answer choice cannot be proven. While we know
that many environmentalists claim a noneconomic justification, we do not
know that that is the only justification they provide. Note how the presence
of a single word—“only”—causes this answer choice to be incorrect.

[caragraham]

Hi, I am confused about the must be true question number 5. The correct answer is B, but this refers to the argument of "Many environmentalists," but uses the term "some environmentalists" which refers to the first argument, and so this is why I eliminated this answer choice

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

The terms "some" and "many" are both fairly vague descriptions, but if I know that many people will be at the theater, then I also know that some people (that is, at least one person) will be at the theater.

Similarly, since I know that "many environmentalists" claim that nature has intrinsic value, then I can also safely say that "some" environmentalists make this claim.

Let me know whether that clears that one up--thanks!

~Steve

[caragraham]

okay i understand that now thanks!!

[maximbasu]

Hi,

I don't understand why answer choice D is wrong and B is correct while they state virtually the exact same thing, only the quantity differs.

1. I converted the convoluted phrase "questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment" to questioning people who exploit the environment.

2. The stimulus talks about "most environmentalists." I don't understand why D is wrong.

Thanks,
Maxim

[Adam Tyson]

We know that many environmentalists provide a non-economic argument (based on intrinsic value rather than economic costs), but do we know that that is their ONLY argument? Nothing in the stimulus tells us that they limit their argument to the "intrinsic value" claim, so it could be that many of them, maybe all of them, also offer economic arguments in support of their defense of the environment. For example, they might say "intrinsic value is more important than economic value, but it just so happens that it is also more economical to preserve the environment than to destroy it."

The key word that sinks answer D is "only", one of the most common and powerful words on the LSAT. Learning to recognize when "only" is justified, when it is a mistake, when it is to be accepted as true (such as in a conditional premise) and when it is to be questioned (such as in a conditional conclusion or in the answer to a Must Be True question), is very important in your LSAT prep. "Only" should always grab your attention. Every word matters, and this one matters more than most. Read carefully and critically, and don't accept extreme language in a Must Be True answer unless that language is proven by the stimulus.

Good luck, and keep at it!

[martinbeslu]

I'm not sure that I understand why answer E is wrong. The statements in the stimulus seem to support this answer. The wording does not seem too strong either. What am I missing?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Martinbeslu,

Thanks for the question. Let's match up the statements in (E) with information in the passage. You're absolutely right that (E) does appear to be talking about information similar to that discussed in the passage, but the LSAT is very strict about making inferences/determining which statement can be properly supported.

In (E) we have a two part statement. The first part posits a scenario in which there is (1) no economic reason for protecting the environment. The second part states that even in the absence of such a reason, there is a (2) good non-economic reason for protecting the environment.

In the stimulus, do we ever explicitly consider the scenario in which there is (1) no economic reason for protecting the environment?

Not exactly. We do talk about the fact that there is no economic benefit to be derived from non-existent forests/wetlands/etc., but this is not quite equivalent to "(1) no economic reason for protecting the environment."

In the next part of the stimulus, we talk about economic costs of protecting the environment outweighed by non-economic considerations, but again, this is not quite the same as " (1) no economic reason for protecting the environment."

Thus this part doesn't match. This disjunction is in fact sufficient to establish that this answer is wrong, because if there is something explicitly wrong with an answer, the whole thing must be wrong.

However, we could further see that while the environmentalists claim that there is a "(2) good non-economic reason for protecting the environment," we cannot infer that they are absolutely positively correct.

This answer choice goes beyond expressing the views of the environmentalists and instead makes a general claim. We lack sufficient evidence in the stimulus to make this kind of general claim.

I hope this helps!

[martinbeslu]

I think the last part of what you said makes the most sense. Basically, if we removed "many environmentalists claim that" from the last sentence of the passage then it would be a fact that we have to accept as true instead of just the opinion of many environmentalists. Would I be correct to say that would make answer choice E correct in that case?

[Adam Tyson]

Yes indeed, martinbeslu - if that second sentence simply started with "because nature has intrinsic value" then we would take it as fact rather than opinion, and answer E would look much, much better (and B would be junk, because we would have no way of knowing if any environmentalists make that argument). That's a stimulus for another test, perhaps!

Keep pounding, you're doing great!