LSAT Explanation PT 43, S2, Q16: Environmentalist: Many people prefer to live

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the environmentalist's argument depends? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Necessary Assumption question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage and identify its structure. The argument is made by an environmentalist, who claims that government-mandated environmental protection in regions of natural beauty can help those regions' economies overall, even if such protection harms some older local industries. The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1: Many people prefer to live in regions of natural beauty.

Premise 2: Such regions often experience an influx of new residents, and a growing population encourages businesses to relocate to those regions.

Conclusion: Government-mandated environmental protection in regions of natural beauty can help those regions' economies overall, even if such protection harms some older local industries.

Now, let's come up with an "Evaluate" question about the argument. An appropriate question would be, "Does the harm to older local industries caused by government-mandated environmental protection outweigh the economic benefits brought by new residents and businesses?"

The question type for this problem is Necessary Assumption, which means we need to identify an assumption on which the environmentalist's argument depends. Let's go through each answer choice and evaluate its relevance to the argument.

a) This answer choice suggests that regions of natural beauty only attract new residents until environmental protection that damages local industries is imposed. If this were true, it would weaken the argument, as the influx of new residents would stop, and the economic benefits brought by them would cease. This answer choice is not an assumption on which the argument depends.

b) This answer choice states that the economies of most regions of natural beauty are not primarily based on local industries that would be harmed by government-mandated environmental protection. While this may seem relevant, it is not necessary for the argument's conclusion to be valid. Even if local industries are the primary economic source in a region, it is still possible that the benefits of new businesses outweigh the harm done to local industries, resulting in an overall economic benefit.

c) This answer choice claims that if government-mandated environmental protection helps a region's economy, it does so primarily by encouraging people to move into that region. This assumption is not necessary for the argument's conclusion to be valid, as there could be other ways in which environmental protection benefits the local economy.

d) This answer choice compares voluntary environmental protection to government-mandated protection and concludes that the latter is more effective. While this may be true, the argument does not depend on this comparison, as the conclusion only claims that government-mandated protection can help the economy, not that it is the best way to do so.

e) This answer choice states that a factor harmful to some older local industries in a region need not discourage other businesses from relocating to that region. This assumption is necessary for the argument's conclusion to be valid, as it ensures that the economic benefits brought by new residents and businesses are not negated by the harm done to older local industries. Therefore, the correct answer is (e).