LR Question 20 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Business owner: Although allowing coal mining in our region…
QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: Coal mining will cause an overall decrease in jobs in the region.
REASONING: Coal mining will create jobs, but more jobs that depend on the region’s natural beauty will be lost to industrial activity.
ANALYSIS: We can break down this argument and look at each individual piece to figure out how this argument is meant to work.
Premise 1: Many businesses depend on our regions natural beauty.
Premise 2: Coal mining will cause these businesses to close because of industrial activity.
Conclusion: Coal mining will cause jobs to decrease.
When analyzing our argument, make sure to be thinking about how each component interacts with the others. Does premise 1 support our conclusion? Notice that it doesn’t support it directly. There is no link between businesses being based on the region’s natural beauty and coal mining causing job decrease. Instead Premise 1 supports Premise 2, which links Premise 1 to the conclusion. It is because businesses depend on natural beauty (premise 1), which coal mining will destroy (premise 2), that causes jobs to decrease overall (conclusion).
___________
- CORRECT. See analysis. Premise 1 supports Premise 2, which in turn supports the Conclusion.
- See analysis. Premise 1 does not directly support the conclusion.
- It is neither a conclusion on its own, because it is supported by nothing else, and does not directly support the conclusion.
- This only indirectly supports the conclusion, so it is a premise.
- Everything is wrong here. It is a fact, not a hypothesis, there is no evidence offered for this statement, and it is used to support the conclusion.
Recap: The question begins with “Business owner: Although allowing coal mining in our region”. It is a Role in Argument question. Learn more about LSAT Role questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Role in Argument Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Role in Argument questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers role in argument questions.
Can you explain why this is different from question 8 in the same section? I don’t understand why this supports another premise but the evidence in question 8 does not.
Great question! They seem quite similar, but the reasoning structures in the two arguments are different, and that’s what explains the different types of support involved.
In Q8, the statement about all life requiring elements heavier than hydrogen and helium is one of two independent premises. The other premise is that our sun has an unusually high abundance of those elements for its age. Together, they jointly support the conclusion that conditions in our solar system are especially favorable to life.
But neither of those two premises supports the other. For example, saying that life requires heavy elements does not make it more or less likely that our sun has those elements (they are logically separate points). Because the claim about life’s chemical requirements is not itself supported by any other statement, and because it’s part of the reasoning that leads to the conclusion, the correct description is A.
In Q20, the structure is different. The claim that many local businesses depend on the region’s beauty isn’t just standing on its own to support the conclusion. Instead, it’s used to support another premise: that industrial activity would cause those businesses to close. That second premise is what directly supports the final conclusion that jobs will decrease. I.e. it’s a chain of reasoning: dependence on natural beauty -> business closures -> jobs decrease. So, it plays a different role than Q8 – here, the statement supports another, which in turn supports the conclusion. Which is what A says in this case.
I hope that helps clarify the difference! Let me know if you have further questions.