Q18 - The current pattern of human

[jenndg100380]

Well, isn't this sad? It's my birthday, and I'm posting LSAT questions bc/ I'm studying LOL

My questions is why can't (E) be the answer. The conclusion states that we much change our pattern of consumption, in which we rely on nonrenewable resources. The premise is because there is only so much available.

If we ultimately can do without nonrenewable resources, wouldn't that cause the argument to fall apart? If we don't need them, we don't need to change our pattern of consumption.

[Or am I confusing conclusions? Is the conclusion, instead, that we must ultimately do without nonrenewable resources and turn to renewable resources??? Still (E) seems like a plausible answer here, but (B) could work as well]

Thanks!

[noah]

Happy Birthday - I hope your present is 3 extra points on the LSAT!

I think you may be a bit turned around about (E). Let's start at the top.

The conclusion here is that we'll have to a) do without metal ore or b) we'll have to use a renewable replacement. Why? Because there's a finite amount of the metal ore we currently use.

It's tough to see this gap, as is often the case for necessary assumption arguments. But the gap here is this: who is to say that these two options - forgoing metal or switching to a renewable replacement - are the only ones? Maybe there's another way to handle the problem. (B) points this out. Perhaps we can switch to another nonrenewable resource as we run out of metal ore. If we negate (B), we would have: we can indefinitely replace exhausted nonrenewable resources with other nonrenewable ones, a fact that would destroy the argument as it introduces an alternative solution.

(A) is immediately suspicious because of the "all." The argument doesn't require that each and every non-renewable resource has a potential renewable replacement; in fact, the conclusion states we might have to go without, so it wouldn't disrupt the argument if in fact there were not a replacement for some of the non-renewables.

(C) is perhaps tempting - if the renewable resource can be exhausted, isn't that a problem? However, if we use the negation of (C) - i.e. that renewable resources are not necessarily going to be renewed - we could still do without, as the conclusion suggests.

(D) is out of scope. We're not interested in the rate.

(E) is tempting however the negation of (E) - ultimately we can do without nonrenewable resources - does not destroy the argument. The conclusion suggests we may have to do without, so the negation suggests we can do that. The negation of a necessary assumption should not support the conclusion!

Does that clear it up?

[jenndg100380]

Thanks, Noah! That definitely helps, and the 3 extra points would definitley help as well!

[LSAT-Chang]

Hey Noah, could you take a look at the core I had??
I was contemplating for about 20 seconds to determine which was the actual conclusion, since I couldn't decide between the first sentence or the last one that you stated above. I tried using the therefore test, and I still got the opposite. So here goes:

1. the curent pattern of human consumption of resources must eventually change because there is only so much metal ore available and we must do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place.

2. there is only so much metal ore available and we must do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place because the current pattern of human consumption of resources must eventually change.

To me, the first sounds a lot better than the second. So I thought the conclusion was the very first sentence. I mean, I had it narrowed down to (A) and (B) and was ultimately able to choose the correct answer in a minute and 32 seconds, but I was very shaky going into the answer choices since even after 20 seconds, I still wasn't sure what the exact conclusion was (and I definitely want to know the actual conclusion and its main premise before moving on to the answer choices). So could you dissect just the "core" for me on this one??

[noah]

The core I laid out above is what you need for this question, but I can see how the first sentence threw you off. I think the best way to look at it is that the first sentence is a general idea, which the actual argument is an example of.

Take a look at this:

Some men, like Domenick, are great husbands. Since Dom has cooked breakfast for his family every day this week, he's really terrific.

The conclusion we need to deal with - the one that's supported by a premise, and has a gap/assumption - is that Dom is really terrrific, but that's an example of the greater idea that some men are great husbands.

In essence, the first sentence is background. Capice?

BTW, you owe me, Dom for writing you into this explanation.

[u2manish]

Dear Noah,

Great thoughts.

Say, I was wondering if you could help us crack this question using formal logic:
Just for a start, can the argument be presented like this:

MR----> W or RR

Therefore: P---> C

I can see there is a link somewhere, can some help us from there? Can we reach (B) from here..? Any thoughts would be helpful.


MR:so much metal ore Which inturn is a subset of NRR (nonrenewable resources)
And NRR is contained in P
W: do without
RR: Turn to renewable resources
C: change

Best,
M

[zee.brad]

Dear Noah,

Great thoughts.

Say, I was wondering if you could help us crack this question using formal logic:
Just for a start, can the argument be presented like this:

MR----> W or RR

Therefore: P---> C

I can see there is a link somewhere, can some help us from there? Can we reach (B) from here..? Any thoughts would be helpful.

MR:so much metal ore Which inturn is a subset of NRR (nonrenewable resources)
And NRR is contained in P
W: do without
RR: Turn to renewable resources
C: change

Best,
M

For me, this assumption question more like a defender type rather than supporter since there is no obvious gap in logical.
pre: MR---> W or RR
con : p ---> C
so what we need to do here is to eliminate other options than P has to change.
Here comes to answer choice B: if we can indefinitely replace nonR with other nonR, we don't have to change our current pattern to avoid W or RR since we can always replace metal with other nonR stuff.
Make sense?

[noah]

Hi Folks, I'm sorry that I just saw the post by u2manish. I have to say that I think formalizing this question is really a distraction. Why do it? You've now brought in something that is irrelevant (the first sentence, which is really just a rephrasing of the conclusion), and I believe it becomes harder to see the issue at play.

I think it's more important to understand the argument with a question like this. It comes down to this: the conclusion acts as if there are only two options, so it's necessary that we assume there aren't any others.

I hope that helps and doesn't seem to much like a rain-on-your-parade sort of response!

[minhtientm249]

Hello,

Isn't replacing a non-renewable resource with another the same with doing without? I just thought that replacing metal ore with XYZ ore us the same with doing without metal ore.

Thank you!

[noah]

Hello,

Isn't replacing a non-renewable resource with another the same with doing without? I just thought that replacing metal ore with XYZ ore us the same with doing without metal ore.

Thank you!

The argument suggests that they're different. It appears to use "do without" to mean we won't have anything that does what ore does. Simply no more paper clips.

[Amir.m.shoar]

Question for you LSAT pros,

Usually when I come upon a necessary assumption question where the conclusion prescribes a solution, the answer choice works somewhat like a "strengthen" question, where it eliminates the possibility of a competing solution. Am I correct in assuming so?

[noah]

Question for you LSAT pros,

Usually when I come upon a necessary assumption question where the conclusion prescribes a solution, the answer choice works somewhat like a "strengthen" question, where it eliminates the possibility of a competing solution. Am I correct in assuming so?

That makes sense. The way I see it is that the question to ask about a solution is "are there any problems with that solution" so you have to defend it.

It sounds like you're building a strong sense of this test. Nice.

[WaltGrace1983]

I have a thought on this type of question that I would like to add. This question really tests your understanding of the word "or," which is often different on the LSAT than it is in everyday society. When I took a formal logic class in college, one thing that I thought was really interesting was that you could add "or ________" to ANY statement and it will be logical (assuming that the thing that came before the "or" is logical of course).

For example, let's say its raining outside. IF it is raining outside, I could logically conclude that it will either be wet outside or Noah is summoning up another hurricane. This is all perfectly fine.

The reason why I bring this up is because it is absolutely critical to understand that "X or Y" does not mean that "X" and "Y" must both be possible. As much as I believe that Noah's LSAT skills could summon a hurricane we like to keep this under wraps and so we'll just say its not possible.

You can see this idea playing out in (A) and (E). If you didn't fully grasp the idea of "or" - like I didn't the first time I did this - it could make such answer choices a lot more tempting.

So whenever you see "X or Y," just know that there MUST BE X or Y happening, but both don't necessarily have to even be possible.

Hope that helps someone!

[HarleenS307]

This might be too far of a reach, but I eliminated B because the premise stated that the pattern of relying on nonrenewable resources needs to be changed, so wouldn't replacing a nonrenewable with another nonrenewable go against that?