LSAT 106 – Section 3 – Question 08

LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 08

June 1999

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:31

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
PT106 S3 Q08
+LR
Must be true +MBT
A
3%
163
B
72%
168
C
1%
161
D
8%
163
E
15%
163
146
157
167
 +Harder 148.198 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.

Summary
Some environmentalists don't think it's a great idea to exploit the environment, because when the environment is all used up no one can economically benefit from it. Many environmentalists don’t think it's a great idea to exploit the environment because, economics aside, the environment has inherent value.

Notable Valid Inferences
Environmentalists take different approaches to rationalizing why environmental exploitation is bad. Some focus on economic costs/benefits, while others don’t.

A
It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
This could be false. We know this is the opinion of some environmentalists—that doesn’t mean it’s true.
B
Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
This must be true. The stimulus says many environmentalists think environmental exploitation is bad because nature has inherent value, and they don’t consider the economic benefits/costs in their justification. We know these people exist, which means (B) must be true.
C
Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
This could be false. We don’t anything about what “most” environmentalists think—we only know about “some” and “many”.
D
Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
This could be false. While we know many environmentalists offer a noneconomic justification against environmental exploitation, we don’t know that this is their only justification—it could be one of many.
E
Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
This could be false. We know this is the opinion of some environmentalists—that doesn’t mean it’s true.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply