#20 - Business owner: Although allowing coal mining in our

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[lsat12345]

Can someone give a detailed explanation as to why A is right? Mainly an explanation for why the claim that local businesses depend on beauty is considered "direct evidence?"

[N3rve_333]

Can someone give a detailed explanation as to why A is right? Mainly an explanation for why the claim that local businesses depend on beauty is considered "direct evidence?"

I share the same concern as the poster above. It seems to me that there is an unstated assumption - something along the lines of "heavy industrial activity rids a region of its natural beauty". The part of the claim about dependence on natural beauty is a necessary condition for the operation of many local businesses. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but in order for the claim to be "direct" evidence for the argument's sub-conclusion, doesn't this sub-conclusion have to invoke the notion of how natural beauty would be tarnished in the presence of industrial activity? Without this notion, there could be many reasons why coal mining would force the majority of local businesses to close, one of which being the more lucrative or stable business opportunity of starting your own coal mine.

Also, it seems to me that the same unstated assumption mentioned above, needed (in my opinion) to classify the claim as "direct" evidence for the argument's sub-conclusion, can analogously be used to classify the claim as "direct" evidence for the argument's main conclusion: if coal mining harms natural beauty, then it seems reasonable to expect that coal mining would reduce the number of jobs since many local businesses depend on natural beauty.

Would appreciate any thoughts on this.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi lsat12345 & N3rve_333,
This is a Method of Reasoning question which is part of the First Family (the Prove Family). In these questions the argument is true and we are using the truth of the argument to prove that one of the answer choices is true. Because of this we are not trying to judge the worth of any of the statements in the argument, we are accepting them as true and then we are looking for an answer choice that works because of what has been said in the argument.

For Answer A the stimulus can be broken down into 3 parts.
The Conclusion is the first sentence: Jobs will will decrease if coal mining is allowed.
The support for the conclusion is the second part of the second sentence: Many businesses would close (decreasing jobs) if coal mining is allowed.
The direct evidence for this is the first part of the second sentence: Many businesses need un-mined land (to preserve natural beauty). This is considered direct evidence because it specifically explains why the next part of that sentence relates to (and supports) the conclusion.
Hope that helps.
-Malila

[LSATmakesmeLSAD]

Hi Malila, thanks for the explanation. I broke down the argument this way:

Premise1: Local businesses require natural beauty

Premise2: Mining will force them to close

Conclusion: Mining will decrease number of jobs

I am confused as to why premise 1 is considered evidence and not a premise. (I picked B instead of A).

[Adam Tyson]

I love that user name! I'm hopeful that we can get you to change it over time, though.

On the LSAT, the terms "evidence" and "premise" are used almost completely interchangeably. A premise IS evidence, which is offered in support of a conclusion. So, when you are looking at, for example, a Method-AP question, which asks you to describe what role a certain claim in the stimulus played in the argument, if you prephrase "it's a premise", you should be prepared to select an answer that says "it's evidence."

I hope that makes you a little Lhappier!

[ser219]

I was between A and B. Why is B wrong? Is "many local businesses depend on our regions natural beauty" not a direct premise? Is this because it would make no sense to the argument if it were not for the second half of the sentence?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi ser,

You've got it exactly! If it were direct support, you'd have to be able to move directly from the claim ("many local businesses depend on our regions natural beauty") to the conclusion ("we can expect the number of jobs in our region to decrease overall if coal mining is permitted"). But we need a reason why dependence on natural beauty would decrease jobs before we can get to the conclusion. That reason is provided by the final claim in the stimulus ("the heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force most [natural beauty dependent] local businesses to close").

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[flexbubbleboi]

I'm still having a little trouble with this one. I appreciate the clarification that "premise" and "evidence" mean the same thing from the LSAT's perspective.

I broke down this argument as:

Premise /Evidence 1: Many local businesses depend on our region's natural beauty.
[Implicit Premise/Evidence: Heavy industrial activity harms our region's natural beauty.]
Premise/Evidence 2: The heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force businesses to close. (This seems almost like it's really just a principle that the conclusion restates.)
Conclusion: If coal mining is introduced, businesses will close.

But I'm having a hard time distinguishing between "direct support and "support." Since the premises in an argument can be put in any order, wouldn't any premise function as both support and direct support?

Or would no premise function as direct support unless it can stand on its own, without any other premise? (Which is an argumentative structure I can't really picture, actually -- it seems like you always need at least three statements for a complete argument:

A premise: e.g., All men are mortal
A situation affected by that condition: Socrates is a man
A conclusion, applying the premise to the condition: Socrates is mortal

Would the premise be direct support if it were something like:

Premise: Many local businesses depend on our region's natural beauty.
Situation: Our region's natural beauty would be harmed by the coal industry.
Conclusion: Many local businesses will be harmed by the coal industry.

In other words, is it the missing premise ("Heavy industrial activity harms our region's natural beauty") that makes the first premise indirect rather than direct? Is a premise only direct if all elements of the argument are present? Thank you for your help working through my confusion!

[Adam Tyson]

The argument looks a little different to me than to some of the folks posting here, flex. I see it as a premise, an intermediate conclusion, and a main conclusion, like so:

Premise: local businesses depend on our region's natural beauty
(Assumption: mining would reduce natural beauty)
Intermediate Conclusion: heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force them to close
Main Conclusion: Allowing coal mining would result in a net loss of jobs

(Note that your conclusion is a little off. The conclusion is not the closing of businesses, but the net loss of jobs despite mining creating some new jobs.)

The reason the premise is indirect support for the main conclusion is because that intermediate conclusion stands in between them. The argument isn't designed to say "businesses depend on natural beauty, therefore mining would reduce jobs." It's designed to get to that end indirectly, through the intermediate step of telling us the businesses would close. So the premise is intended to directly support the intermediate conclusion and thereby indirectly support the main conclusion.