LSAT 117 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q13

LR Question 13 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The solution to any environmental problem …

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: Few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing.

REASONING:

1. Changing consumer habits is the solution to any environmental problem that isn’t caused by the government.
2. Changing consumer habits will only happen if such changes are economically enticing.

ANALYSIS: Let’s diagram this.

1. If an environmental problem is NOT caused by government mismanagement, solving it requires major changes in consumer habits.

Not GM → Major consumer changes

1. Major changes in consumer habits occur only if they’re economically enticing.

Major consumer changes → Economically enticing

Combining the two, we get: Not GM → Major consumer changes → Economically enticing

The problem is that the conclusion talks about few serious ecological problems, but the premises talk about all environmental problems that are not caused by government mismanagement.

To conclude that, we need to know that few serious ecological problems are caused by government mismanagement.

Because the argument already covers all the non-government-mismanagement problems. If only a few serious ecological problems fall outside that category, then the conclusion can legitimately say few serious ecological problems will be solved without economically enticing solutions.

___________

1. CORRECT. This tells us few serious eco problems are from GM. So, most serious eco problems are covered by the premises’ chain: Not GM → Major consumer changes → Economically enticing. So it follows that few serious eco problems will be solved unless the solutions are economically enticing.
2. This discusses whether government-caused problems have economically feasible solutions. The argument never mentions economic feasibility.
3. Whether major changes can be made economically enticing is irrelevant. The conclusion is about what must be true if problems are solved.
4. Tempting trap, but it goes in the wrong direction. We need info about whether serious ecological problems are from government mismanagement or not. D tells us: non-government problems → major ecological problems. The relationship is reversed.
5. This directly undermines the premises by saying few serious ecological problems can be solved by major consumer changes.