#16- Max: Although doing so would be very costly, humans

[Adam Tyson]

Looks right to me, Sambenz! I think you've uncovered why so many people gravitate towards answer B - they are focused on the wrong causal relationship. Well done! You are correct that the real issue, the real cause, is the growing economic incentive. The author presumes that cause will eventually be strong enough to overcome any objections, economic or otherwise, and that assumption is the problem here.

Nice work!

[desiboy96]

Hello, so I think I messed this question up due to a mistranslation/ and misinterpretation and I was hoping someone could help me out. But to understand why I chose the incorrect answer I need to explain my thought process.

So after reading the argument, in my head I thought, "okay what if that incentive to build colonies on the moon is there but the company(ies) that will build these colonies fail to act on this growing incentive. OR what if these colonies are built but people on Earth don't want go to the moon?

As such, I narrowed my choices down between A and E and I think chose E because I assumed it was saying what my second prephrase was saying but that is clearly wrong lol.

In my head, I read E as, "the argument assumes that if some of the human population would prefer to live on the Moon, then Earth is seriously crowded". I think what tripped me up was the word unless but I'm not absolutely certain and I was hoping someone could help me with this. However, if that word did trip me up I just want to make sure I'm translating unless statements properly so I don't repeat my errors.

Thanks in advance

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi deisboy,

Answer choice (E) is talking about something irrelevant to the argument. Our basic argument is that we can build a colony, we will have some motivation to build a colony, therefore we will almost certainly build that colony. It doesn't ask if people will want that colony. It doesn't matter if people would generally prefer Earth to the Moon. The argument does not require any statement about personal preferences.

When I read this stimulus, I immediately thought of law breaking. I'm sure that says something deep about my personality, but let's ignore that big. A similar argument would look like this. The speed limit is 60 miles an hour. My car can go 120 miles per hour. Eventually, I'm always running a bit late, and would want my car to go faster. Therefore, I will almost certainly drive 120 miles an hour.

That's the same sort of jump made in the stimulus. We can do X, we have reasons to want to do X, therefore it's extremely likely we will do X. It completely ignores any reasons we wouldn't want to do X. There are lots of reasons not to drive 120 miles an hour--potential tickets, poor driving skills, traffic. The stimulus gives reasons that we wouldn't want to build on the Moon---cost. But the argument doesn't do any of the work of weighing the different considerations. Once there is something in favor of building (overcrowded planet), it will be enough to offset ALL of the potential downsides. This argument wasn't strong enough to support that conclusion. And that's what answer choice (A) says: the author ignored that the economic pressure still might not be enough to support a colony on the Moon.

Hope that helps!

[Agent00729]

Hi! I have a question regarding this one. I was debating between A and B, but eliminated A because doesn't "economic incentive" imply that it makes sense for a costly product to be undertaken? Isn't nested into the definition of the term the idea that the economic benefits outweigh the costs? Otherwise what would be the incentive?

Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Agent00729!

"Economic incentive" just means "economic motivation." So answer choice (A) is basically saying that the author is assuming that the economic motivation to construct colonies on the Moon is going to increase enough for them to want to undertake the costs. You could think of this in terms of the benefits outweighing the costs--but it's somewhat more complicated than that. If I spend $10 billion to build a colony on the moon and from this venture I make back $10 billion + $1, technically my benefits outweigh my costs--I made a whole $1! But was it worth the years of work and the riskiness of the endeavor to make $1? Probably not--especially when I could have invested that $10 billion elsewhere. So even if the benefits technically outweigh the costs, that might still not be enough motivation for me to undertake moon colonization when I could invest my money in other ventures that might have a greater return on investment.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[Agent00729]

Got it, thanks!

[LSAT4Life]

After reading the thread, I have an additional question on why (B) is incorrect. Since the author only talks about one option, I assumed that he implies that it's the only option. I see why (A) is correct, but wanted to understand the error that's in my thinking process.

I'm thinking that I might have gone beyond the text in making the assumption that if the author talks about only one option then he assumes it's the only option?

[Bob O'Halloran]

Hi LSAT,

Thank you for your questions.

The test makers often write incorrect answers that our very tempting. Answer choice (B) fails because the stimulus never states that it is the only option. I see where you can read that into the argument, but you want to be able to specifically point to the evidence as you can with Answer choice (A)

I hope this helps
Bob

[queenbee]

Hi
I selected B for this question because the author stated "such colonies will most certainly be built". To me that means that "Max" doesn't believe there is any other alternative. Even if there is an economic incentive, why couldn't the money to build colonies on the moon be used for a more efficient means to address the overcrowding on earth. Would you be able to provide some more information on this one?
thanks so much!

[Robert Carroll]

queenbee,

The argument simply does not assume that the only way of relieving overcrowding is the construction of colonies on Mars, so answer choice (B) is a non-starter. Building colonies on Mars and using other means of addressing overcrowding are not mutually exclusive, so by thinking that Mars colonies will be built, Max is not assuming no other method also works - Max isn't even saying those methods won't be used as well.

It's analogous to an argument like this:

"We need to keep ourselves entertained on vacation. Although it's currently very expensive, the amusement park will be running a special that will make tickets cheaper around the time we take our vacation. Thus, we'll attend the amusement park on our vacation."

Nothing about that argument assumes that only the amusement park can keep us entertained over vacation, nor does it exclude spending time doing other activities as well. Like the stimulus, however, it assumes that the decrease in price for amusement park tickets will be sufficient to make them cost-effective.

Robert Carroll