#25 - Economist: In order to decide what to do about

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

For this question I was debating between A and D, what makes A to be wrong and D to be the right answer.

Thanks

Ellen

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Ellen,

Answer choice a suggests that the argument is flawed because it erroneously compares different resources, because it ascribes the property of the ozone layer to all other resources as well. However, the argument doesn't do this. The only resource it talks about is the ozone layer which is why A is not the best answer.

Answer choice D is correct because the stimulus concludes that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value from the fact that a finite amount of money exists. This is flawed because there is no way in which a finite money supply implies everything must have a monetary value. Rather, the argument fails to consider that the environmentalists are arguing that view old zone is invaluable, that is, irreplaceable. We could assign a monetary value to the ozone, the finite amount of money that exists does not require us to do so.

[ellenb]

Thanks Luke,

So, I guess for answer choice A, when it says "monetary value of any natural resource" were here in the stimulus it talks only about the ozone layer which is only one natural resource. And the stimulus does not compare it to no other resources, it is almost like the answer is making an overgeneralization, because we have only one natural resource and it is trying to generalize about the "monetary value of any natural rersource."


And for answer choice D it feels like it is an equvocation almost, because as you mentioned the environmentalists think of the ozone layer as invaluable, and irreplaceable and the economists want to put a monetary value on it. So, the economists think of it as invaluable and the environmentalists think of it as valuable finite. They almost have a different understanding what the ozone layer means in financial terms/monetarily for one (environmentalits) it is invalueable (cannot put a price on it) and for the others(economits) it is finite, there is a certain limit to it.
And according to the answer just merely putting a limit to it (upper limit) does not allow necessarily for us to quantify the ozone layer's monetary value corectly.

Thanks, please let me know if my thought process it is sort of along your lines. If I understood it correctly.

Best,

Ellen

[Blueballoon5%]

Hi Ellen,

Answer choice a suggests that the argument is flawed because it erroneously compares different resources, because it ascribes the property of the ozone layer to all other resources as well. However, the argument doesn't do this. The only resource it talks about is the ozone layer which is why A is not the best answer.

Answer choice D is correct because the stimulus concludes that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value from the fact that a finite amount of money exists. This is flawed because there is no way in which a finite money supply implies everything must have a monetary value. Rather, the argument fails to consider that the environmentalists are arguing that view old zone is invaluable, that is, irreplaceable. We could assign a monetary value to the ozone, the finite amount of money that exists does not require us to do so.

Hello! For the last sentence, wouldn't that justify answer choice C? I chose answer choice C because the economist misinterpreted the environmentalists' usage of "value."

[Brook Miscoski]

Blueballoon,

I cringe whenever I hear economists make arguments about value. The fact that we can't devote all of our resources to one concern out of many concerns proves absolutely nothing about the inherent worth of any concern at all--not even an upper value. It genuinely is true that economists regularly conflate value with money. However, here we have to play the hand we're dealt in answering LSAT questions.

The reason that (C) is wrong is that both the economist and the environmentalists are talking about monetary value. In fact, the economist makes it clear all along that he's only concerned with the monetary value that one would willingly spend, as opposed to any other measure of value. Thus, you should not select a choice that claims ambiguity in a key term.

The economist is arguing that whatever the monetary value is of the total resources of the planet, you would not spend all of them on just one thing. This does set an upper limit by his way of thinking, but it does not tell you what the calculation would be. It's somewhere between 0 and a very large number--it's indefinite. Thus, (D) correctly states the flaw.