LSAT 101 – Section 3 – Question 25

LSAT 101 - Section 3 - Question 25

December 1997

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 0:55

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT101 S3 Q25	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Net Effect +NetEff Link Assumption +LinkA	A 4% 157 B 2% 161 C 11% 164 D 79% 169 E 5% 164	146 156 166	+Harder	146.901 +SubsectionMedium

Economist: In order to decide what to do about protecting the ozone layer, we must determine the monetary amount of the economic resources that we would willingly expend to protect it. Such a determination amounts to a calculation of the monetary value of the ozone layer. Environmentalists argue that the ozone layer does not have a calculable monetary value. However, we would not willingly expend an amount equal to all of the world’s economic resources to protect the ozone layer, so the ozone layer is demonstrably worth less than that amount. Thus, the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The economist concludes that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value—i.e. the amount of money we would be willing to spend to protect it. This is supported by the claim that we wouldn’t spend all of the world’s economic resources to protect the ozone layer. This leads to the sub-conclusion that there must be an upper limit to how much the ozone layer is worth.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The economist concludes that a certain value is calculable because there is an upper limit to that value. However, even if there is an upper limit to the ozone layer’s value, that still doesn’t establish that the exact monetary value of the ozone layer can be calculated.

uses evidence that the monetary value of a particular natural resource is less than a certain amount in order to establish that the monetary value of any natural resource is less than that amount

The economist never discusses natural resources other than the ozone layer, nor makes any claims about other natural resources.

presupposes that the ozone layer should not be protected and then argues to that claim as a conclusion

The economist just doesn’t conclude that the ozone layer shouldn’t be protected. The conclusion here is that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value, not whether or not we should protect it.

takes advantage of an ambiguity in the term “value” to deflect the environmentalists’ charge

There is no ambiguity in how the term “value” is used here, by either the economist or the environmentalists. Everyone involved uses “value” to mean “monetary value” and nothing else.

gives no reason for thinking that merely establishing an upper limit on a certain monetary value would allow the calculation of that monetary value

The economist establishes that the ozone layer’s monetary value has an upper limit, but doesn’t give us any reason to think that that its exact monetary value can be calculated from there.

does not directly address the argument of the environmentalists

The economist does directly address the environmentalists’ argument: the environmentalists claim that the ozone layer does not have a calculable monetary value, and the economist argues directly against that claim.

LSAT 101 – Section 3 – Question 25

LSAT 101 - Section 3 - Question 25

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 101 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel