Self-study
Support "Multiple use" refers to the utilization of natural resources in combinations that will best meet the present and future needs of the public. ███████████ ████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ███████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████ █████
Summary
The author concludes that designating land as a wilderness area can be consistent with the multiple-use philosophy. (Which is that natural resources should be used in the way that best serves the public’s needs.) Why? Because they can provide the most overall benefit, even when they don’t provide the most financial returns.
Notable Assumptions
The author’s argument relies on conflating the multiple-use philosophy’s understanding of public benefit with the benefits of wilderness designation. He views the non-financial benefits of designating land as wilderness areas as potentially providing the most overall value. But what if the public needs underlying the multiple-use philosophy are purely financial?
The author must therefore assume that non-financial considerations are relevant to the multiple-use philosophy.
17.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████
a
Natural resources should ██ ████ ██ ████████████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████████████
The author’s argument is about whether wilderness designation does in fact contradict the multiple-use philosophy. He doesn’t make any statements about whether this philosophy should be followed.
b
Designating a wilderness ████ ████████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ ████ █████
This isn’t relevant to the author’s argument. His contention is that wilderness designation can provide the greatest overall benefit by multiple-use standards. It isn’t that wilderness designation will solve every conceivable environmental problem.
c
The present and ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██ ███████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ██████
The author’s argument is only that wilderness designation can be consistent with the multiple-use philosophy. He gives no indication that the current number of wilderness areas is insufficient by multiple-use standards.
d
The multiple-use philosophy █████ ████ ███████ ████ ████████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████
The negation is: Multiple-use philosophy only takes into account financial needs. If this were the case, wilderness designation could not be consistent with multiple-use, since it sometimes prioritizes non-financial considerations. This undermines the author’s reasoning.
e
The multiple-use philosophy █████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ █████
The author only contends that both future and present needs are considered under multiple-use; the balance between them is not relevant to his argument.