Q24 - The problem that environmental economics

[cyruswhittaker]

Can someone please help me to understand this question and why A is a the best choice? Thanks

[noah]

This is a strange question in that we're asked to evaluate the strength of the argument. This is not a common question type and I believe has been retired. But, let's take a look and see what we learn.

The stimulus is a rather confusing argument. The conclusion is that environmental economics is motivated and stymied (blocked) by the same thing. So, what is this motivation and obstacle? It's the fact that people cannot easily compare environmental factors with other costs and benefits. This is the problem these economists hope to solve, but solving it requires that environmental factors be assigned monetary values, which relies on, you guessed it, comparing the cost of them with other things, a comparison we already know is tough for folks to do. In one sense this seems circular - the problem to be solved is stymied by the problem itself. But, the fact that the problem the argument discusses is circular doesn't mean that the argument explaining the problem is circular. However, as in most of the arguments we see on the LSAT, there is indeed a flaw. Take this analogous argument:

We want to get money so we can build our business, but we could make money by having a larger business, so our lack of money both motivates and stymies us. If you were advising the person who said this, what would you suggest? Probably you'd suggest getting a loan! Just because one way of resolving the problem is not possible doesn't mean there isn't another way.

Indeed, the argument makes sense, as (A) notes, if we assume that people making economic decisions about environmental factors is the only way that monetary values can be assigned. Perhaps there's another way, such as having a computer do it.

If a more formal approach is helpful, here's how the premises can be represented:

1. CANNOT comparing envir. factors

2. comparing envir. factors --> assign $ values to env. factors

3. comparing envir. factors (cost/benefits) --> assign $ values to env. factors

If we knew for sure that we cannot assign $ values to env. factors, then we could, by using the contrapositive of the second statement, know that we cannot make econ. dec. about envir. However, while we may not be able to have "comparing costs/benefits", the negation of that does not mean we must not have assign $ values to env. factors (if A --> B, and we have ~ A, we don't necessarily have ~ B). However, if we add in the premise that answer choice (A) provides, we now have the reverse of statement 3: assign $ values to env. factors --> comparing cost/benefits, and so we now that we don't have assign $ values to env. factors, because we know that we can't compare costs/benefits.

Wow, that's a mind-bender!

Let's quickly look at the wrong answers:

(B) is incorrect because if the second part were true - if decision making had already started about environmental factors, then the problem described in the argument wouldn't exist. Furthermore, would the effect mentioned in this answer be one in which economic values were assigned?

(C) may be tempting - perhaps folks already do assign economic values to environmental factors. However, that would be a simplistic reversal of a premise - if an LSAT argument states that people don't do something, they don't do it! Furthermore, does taking adequate account mean an economic value has been assigned?

(D) is out of scope. We're not actually talking about the relationship between these decisions and actual environmental factors. We're talking about whether we can assign values to environmental factors.

(E) is tempting, but as noted above, just because an argument discusses a circular problem does not mean that the argument is circular.

Tricky one! Did that clear it up?

[jonathanmoneymaker]

This really helped out a lot with understanding this question! Do you have any advice for someone's who's having trouble coming away with the meaning of the argument quicker when the language is as confusing as this one. I find I could answer a question like this correctly if I had more time but being timed really kills my ability. Thanks.

[zip]

This was a weird question. I think it was even more complex than the way Noah described it. I think it may have been a little off as the premise is "can not readily be compared" this does not rule out that it can be compared .Take the argument that in order to know what a car is worth one must consider a number of factors which are not readily available to average car buyers, therefore average car buyers can not determine the value of a car. That is more similar to the reasoning of the argument than a simple reversal as we only know it is not readily comparable, not that it can't be compared. That is a weakness in the chain which leads to the conclusion that economic decisions can't be made because the appropriate weighing can't be done, since we only know that it is difficult, not impossible. But assuming as the argument must that this is a major problem, as it is the motivating reason for why EE is required required, we need not expect knock down proof of incapacity, but a major obstacle is sufficient to create the problem. I think C exploits this, but not well enough to be right. It requires the argument to establish a negative claim, which is rather vague and does not tie in directly with the text. Namely, we have reason to believe that it is very difficult, it does not address the comparison aspect, and goes off text. Really, even if it were textual, it would only point out the argument is not deductively valid, which it is not as shown above, but it's still a pretty good argument despite having gaps.

[jiangziou]

It took me a long time to understand this Mistaken Negation question..

The conditionality is as follows.

People making economic decisions cannot readily compare environmental factors.
Solving this problem requires assigning monetary values to environmental factors.(compare--->$)

But $ values result from people comparing costs and benefits in order to make economic decisions. (can't compare)
Thus, it is stymied by what motivates it.(no $)

[LeonC641]

I was tempted by (E). I interpreted the flaw to be: presupposing one to be an aim of environmental economics (EE). So I thought that the argument committed the fallacy of begging the question. Did I think it wrong?