Q17 - "Multiple use" refers to the utilization

[sbrandt85]

If there is no designation for wilderness, then it wouldn't meet the present and future needs of the public. I don't understand why answer C is incorrect.

[rhb5r]

I hear you. This was a very difficult question, and I picked C as well. However, I think I understand why D is correct.

The argument says that designating land as a wilderness area can provide the greatest overall benefit from the site.

So we need to figure out what is necessary to make the statement true. I think the operative phrase is "greatest overall benefit" from the site.

D is correct it takes into account some nonfinancial needs of the public. If this is true, then designating land as a wilderness area does indeed provide the greatest overall benefit from that site. If D were incorrect, then setting aside land would provide only financial benefits to the public.

C says that the present and future needs of the public are best addressed by designating greater numbers of wilderness areas. This doesn't help us draw the conclusion, because setting aside more land doesn't have anything to do with deriving the greatest overall benefit from it. If C were false, we could still help the public by designating some land (just not more).

I hope that helps. If anyone has a better explanation, please help me out.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument says that designating land as a wilderness area can provide the greatest overall benefit from the site.

So we need to figure out what is necessary to make the statement true. I think the operative phrase is "greatest overall benefit" from the site.

I think you're focused on the wrong argument

The conclusion here is that designating land as wilderness area does not necessarily violate "multiple-use" philosophy. The evidence for this is that designating land as wilderness area can provide the greatest overall benefit from that site, even though it does not provide the greatest dollar return.

Answer choice (D) is a required assumption because the conclusion is about what is consistent with multiple-use philosophy. We know that designating land as wilderness area does not provide the greatest dollar return, so it must take into account some nonfinancial needs of the public - answer choice (D).

(A) is irrelevant. The argument is about what is consistent with multiple-use philosophy, not what should occur.
(B) is too strong and would require many additional assumptions. Some exploitation of natural resources of the wilderness area could be consistent with multiple-use philosophy.
(C) is irrelevant - though tempting. It does guarantee a benefit from designating land as wilderness area. But it is not required for multiple-use philosophy to be consistent with this designation. Multiple-use refers to the best way to meet the present and future needs of the public. The conclusion though plays on the openended nature of what it means to be consistent (could be true). And almost anything could be true, or be consistent with multiple-use philosophy. Including anything multiple-use doesn't mention and anything that doesn't contradict what it does mention.
(E) is irrelevant. Designating land as wilderness area doesn't necessarily benefit the future more than the present.

Does that answer your question?

[ymcho2013]

So basically the reason why C is wrong is :

even though designating land as a wilderness area doesn't violate/is consistent with MU-P, doesn't mean that designating land as a wilderness will necessarily guarantee that present and future needs will best be met through this method?

any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated!!

[shirando21]

The argument says that designating land as a wilderness area can provide the greatest overall benefit from the site.

So we need to figure out what is necessary to make the statement true. I think the operative phrase is "greatest overall benefit" from the site.

I think you're focused on the wrong argument

The conclusion here is that designating land as wilderness area does not necessarily violate "multiple-use" philosophy. The evidence for this is that designating land as wilderness area can provide the greatest overall benefit from that site, even though it does not provide the greatest dollar return.

Answer choice (D) is a required assumption because the conclusion is about what is consistent with multiple-use philosophy. We know that designating land as wilderness area does not provide the greatest dollar return, so it must take into account some nonfinancial needs of the public - answer choice (D).

(A) is irrelevant. The argument is about what is consistent with multiple-use philosophy, not what should occur.
(B) is too strong and would require many additional assumptions. Some exploitation of natural resources of the wilderness area could be consistent with multiple-use philosophy.
(C) is irrelevant - though tempting. It does guarantee a benefit from designating land as wilderness area. But it is not required for multiple-use philosophy to be consistent with this designation. Multiple-use refers to the best way to meet the present and future needs of the public. The conclusion though plays on the openended nature of what it means to be consistent (could be true). And almost anything could be true, or be consistent with multiple-use philosophy. Including anything multiple-use doesn't mention and anything that doesn't contradict what it does mention.
(E) is irrelevant. Designating land as wilderness area doesn't necessarily benefit the future more than the present.

Does that answer your question?

Great explanation, thanks a lot, Matt:)

[nflamel69]

Hey Matt,

what if there is an answer that says that designating land as wilderness at least takes some nonfinancial needs into account, would that also be necessary? I asked this because this is the answer I predicted. Would that also be a right answer?

[griffin.811]

For assumption questions, we need to be extremely CRITICAL!

What are we being asked to do? They want us to find the assumption that is required to substantiate the ARGUMENT (not the BACKGROUND INFO!!!)

Ironically, I think most of us may have gotten this correct had we skipped the BI (background info).

argument: designating land as wilderness does not violate MUP, BECAUSE, while designating land as wilderness does not provide the best $ return, it can provide greatest overall benefit.

Assumption: even without the BI, we see that we need something that says either "providing the best $ return is not a necessary part of MUP" or "providing the greatest overall benefit, on its own, is enough to remain consistent with MUP"

C says neither, it just sounds great because it borrows language from the BI.

D actually makes it possible to not provide the best $ return, while staying within the realm of MUP.

[soyeonjeon]

I have a problem with this stimulus.

Premise 1: ""Multiple use" refers to the utilization of natural resources in combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the public.

Conclusion: Designating land as a wilderness area does not necessarily violate the multiple-use philosophy,

Premise 2: for even when such use does not provide the greatest dollar return, it can provide the greatest overall benefit from that site.

But where in the premise does it state that unless nonfinancial needs of the public are met, the multiple-use philosophy is violated.

In premise, it clearly does not mention that financial needs must be met in order for the multiple use to be realized, instead it only states that it must be "best" met, which the conclusion counters with the fact that wilderness can provide the "Greatest overall benefit."

Why is it REQUIRED to assume that multiple-use philosophy takes into account the non-financial needs of the public?

what role does "for even when such use does not provide the greatest dollar return" play in the sentence or in the argument?

I'm really lost. Please help.
Thanks.

[uhdang]

After two years from the last post, I think it'd be safe to refresh it a bit. So, I'll take a stab at this one while answering questions from the last post.

This is a Necessary Assumption Question. So the right answer choice would either fill the gap by providing the link or defend the argument by introducing and eliminating a potential weakness in argument.

Here is the core:

Using natural resources while best meeting present and future public needs is Multiple Use + Designating land as wilderness area doesn't bring greatest financial return but brings in greatest overall benefit
==>
Designating land as a wilderness area does not violate the multiple-use philosophy.

In an attempt to find a gap in this argument, it was tough, but there seemed to be a bit of opening in connecting "providing the greatest overall benefit" and "no violation in meeting present and future needs of the public." And I left a mental note that financial matter has been mentioned in overall benefit. Even though I felt like this was where a missing link exist, I wasn't sure of it, so I decided to tackle answer choices without further analyzing assumption. If anyone spotted a better assumption, please share with me.

A) This is mainly a definition of what "multiple use" is. Whether it SHOULD be conducted as such is not the focus in this argument. We are concerned with what VIOLATES this "multiple use" theory or not. This is out of scope.

B) While conclusion talks about the relationship between designating land as a wilderness area and multiple use theory, assuming the former prevents any usage of natural resource would establish no relationship to the multiple use theory, for this theory talks about utilization of natural resources. No effect on the bridge.

C) We are concerned about whether designating wilderness area violate multiple-use philosophy or not. Designating how many / how many more wilderness area violates or complies with the philosophy is not the concern. Although this is on a similar chain of thought, it is a bit off, so this won't be necessary to the bridge.

D) This seems to fill in the gap stated above. Disregarding financial matter ("providing greatest dollar return"), in order to explain greatest overall benefit, there has to be some other aspect of benefit to account for the overall. And D) provides it: some non-financial needs. To make sure of this answer choice, applying negation technique would read: The multiple use philosophy takes into account none of non-financial needs (takes into account only financial needs) of the public. and this is a complete contradiction to the passage,"for even when such use does not provide the greatest dollar return."

E) Comparing future needs with present ones is completely off the scope. These are two elements of what "multiple use" is defined for, so it has no influence on the bridge. Irrelevant.

As for the question,

But where in the premise does it state that unless nonfinancial needs of the public are met, the multiple-use philosophy is violated.

Nowhere in the passage is mentioned that unless nonfinancial needs of the public are met, the multiple-use philosophy is violated. non-financial aspect is introduced to provide the gap and eliminate a possible weakness of the argument, as one of the ways for necessary assumption question is exploited is to "shield" against possible weakening scenario.

Given that providing greatest overall benefit is a legitimate reason for "not necessarily violating the multiple-use philosophy" and greatest dollar return would not occur, what if there is no other benefits designating land as wilderness area provide? then there wouldn't be ANY benefit to satisfy requirement for multiple-use theory ("best meeting present and future needs). So, D) is providing "some non-financial" aspect as a possible benefit that could result in greatest overall benefit.

In premise, it clearly does not mention that financial needs must be met in order for the multiple use to be realized, instead it only states that it must be "best" met, which the conclusion counters with the fact that wilderness can provide the "Greatest overall benefit."

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question here, but instead of "countering" it, it is "assuming" that providing the Greatest overall benefit could be a legitimate reason for concluding that it "does not necessarily violate" the philosophy. (And you and I might have a different opinion for what the conclusion is, and the confusion might be coming from there)

Why is it REQUIRED to assume that multiple-use philosophy takes into account the non-financial needs of the public?

I think the first answer to your question answers this question as well.

what role does "for even when such use does not provide the greatest dollar return" play in the sentence or in the argument?

This would be a part of a premise.

[asafezrati]

Doesn't B weaken the argument?
"Exploitation" has a negative tone, but can be assumed to be similar in meaning to "utilization" in this context.
So if the designation prevents ANY exploitation/utilization of natural resources it violates the principle of "multiple use."
I guess we also have to assume that the prevention happens both in the present and the future.

[maryadkins]

If you take exploitation to be entirely and perfectly synonymous with utilization, I follow your argument. The good news is that at best it's irrelevant and at worst it weakens, and either way that makes it not the assumption!