LSAT Explanation PT 28, S3, Q8: Some environmentalists question the prudence of

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Must Be True question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

This LSAT problem is a Must Be True (MBT) question. The passage discusses the opinions of some environmentalists regarding the exploitation of environmental features. The environmentalists argue that nature has intrinsic value, and it would be wrong to destroy these features even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.

Let's break down the passage into simpler terms. Imagine a beautiful forest that has valuable resources like timber. Some environmentalists believe that the forest's beauty and natural value are more important than the potential economic gain from cutting down the trees for timber. They argue that even if cutting down the trees would bring more money than preserving the forest, it would still be wrong to destroy it.

Now, let's analyze the answer choices:

a) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.

- This choice makes a factual assertion that is not supported by the passage. The passage only discusses the opinions of some environmentalists, not the actual facts of the situation. Therefore, we cannot infer that it is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.

b) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

- This choice is correct. The passage mentions that many environmentalists believe in the intrinsic value of nature, which is a noneconomic justification for preserving the environment. Since "many" implies "some," we can infer that some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification.

c) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

- This choice cannot be proven. The passage only discusses the opinions of "some" and "many" environmentalists, which does not provide enough information to determine the views of "most" environmentalists.

d) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

- This choice is incorrect because we do not know if the noneconomic justification is the only justification provided by many environmentalists. The passage only states that many environmentalists claim a noneconomic justification, but it does not say that it is their only argument.

e) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.

- This choice makes a factual assertion that is not supported by the passage. The passage only discusses the opinions of some environmentalists, not the actual facts of the situation. Therefore, we cannot infer that there is a sound noneconomic justification for protecting the environment even if there is no economic reason for doing so.

Based on our analysis, the correct answer choice is (b): Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.