Ask Questions, Discuss Approaches & No Clutter
Jsy Singh
1

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment

Open 4 Answers 2959 Views
GMAT Timer00:00

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that
there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.
Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such
features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic
costs of not doing so.
Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?
(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.

Official Answer

4 Answers

BGPC_Eliza
1

Even though it is officially an LSAT question, practicing LSAT critical reasoning and reading comprehension is actually really helpful for the GMAT.  They are essentially the same as GMAT questions except they are more difficult, so they are valuable for people aiming for a 700+. 

Let's go through the answer choices

A) is wrong because it is too strong of a claim.  The prompt only says that "SOME environmentalists environmentalists QUESTION the prudence of exploiting features of the environment", so it would be too much to infer this

B) Since the prompt states that "Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features" it would be logical to infer that Some appeal to noneconomic justifications

C) is wrong because again it goes to far.  There is nothing in the propt that would allow us to infer anything about most scientists

D) is wrong because just because many environmentalists provide noneconomic justification doesn't mean that is the ONLY justification they provide

E) is wrong because it outside the scope.  There is nothing in the propt that allows us to determine what would be a sound justification or not, there is no mention of the sort.

Thus, the answer choice is B.  This question is a great example of how the simplest answer that is closest to the prompt can often be the correct one.

answered Oct 14, 2014 by Associate (125 points)
1Comments
nice explaination.
commented Oct 14, 2014 by Guru (5,628 points)
Nami Bob
0

To me, B and D are Contenders. I then dismissed D because "only a noneconomic justification". Without "only" it will not bring any doubt. Then B should be the correct answer

 

answered May 18, 2017 by Partner (791 points)
edited May 18, 2017 by
flamingo
0
The justification advanced by "many environmentalists" in the last sentence is clearly non-economic, since it runs directly counter to economic principles (" ... even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so"). i'll explain why C and D are wrong.
 
(c) While there is an economic justification in the passage - specifically, the justification mentioned in the first sentence - this justification is limited to SOME environmentalists. this choice is wrong, then, since it claims "most" and is thus overreaching.
(d) This choice is wrong because of the "only".
The passage claims that certain environmentalists have advanced a non-economic justification, but never says that this is the ONLY justification advanced by those environmentalists.
In fact, note that, whatever be the question, this CANNOT be the correct answer IF (b) is also an available option. (reason: if (d) is true, then (b) MUST also be true, since it's a weaker claim about the same thing. therefore, if (d) is true, then (b) is a fortiori also true. since you can't have two correct answers, (d) can't possibly be correct.)
answered Mar 26, 2015 by Guru (5,628 points)
tusharkhatri
-1
This is LSAT question ...
answered Oct 13, 2014 by Student (39 points)
1Comments
thanks tushar.
commented Oct 14, 2014 by Guru (5,628 points)
Student Speaks

Jyotsna Mehta

Indian School of Business, Co'18

I am very thankful to Gmatxchange and would definitely recommend Gmatxchange mentors to all those students applying for MBA admissions

Your Tentative GMAT Score
Estimate your GMAT score.
700
The scorer helps you to determine your current level within a few questions you solve.Read More
Please log in or register to use the Scoring Feature
Confused about your profile & colleges, Get FREE profile evaluation today from over 10 consultants.
Follow us and get quick prep updates on Facebook
...