Self-study
Support So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. ████████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████ █████████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████ ███████████ ████████ ███████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ █████████ ████ █████ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ █ ████ ███ █████ ████████████████ ████████████ ███████ █████ ██████ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███████ ██████████████
Competing explanations: sincere or cynical
First off, this stem sets up an interesting dynamic. Even though the argument’s main conclusion is that we should dismiss the environmentalists’ claim, this question calls for an assumption that’s necessary to infer the intermediate conclusion (that the environmentalists don’t actually care about the environment). That quirk is reflected in this analysis’ highlighting.
Here’s a distilled summary of the argument:
Premise: These environmentalists have opposed almost every development proposal.
Premise: They claim it's for environmental reasons.
________
Conclusion: I don't believe them. I think these environmentalists don’t actually care about the environment – they just hate progress.
That's an interesting explanation. I suppose it fits the facts. It could be true that the so-called environmentalists are actually cynical anti-development activists. But it could also be true that the environmentalists are sincere in their concern for the environment. That would be a competing explanation for their opposition to development.
Let's now recall that this is a Necessary Assumption question. We're on the author's side. Our prefered explanation is that the environmentalists are actually cynical. With that in mind, let's consider the answer choices with an eye towards which one must be true for our explanation to hold. Or, if you prefer, which answer choice, if false, would ruin our explanation?
21.
For the claim that the ███████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ████████
a
Not every development ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ █████ █████████ █████████████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ████ ████████ ██ ██ ████ █ ██████ ██ ███ ████████████
(A) must be assumed. Remember, our explanation is that these environmentalists are actually cynical, i.e., they don't really care about the enviroment. They are just anti-progress. Well show me at least one development proposal which would not have posed a threat to the environment but which they opposed anyway. In other words, take the environmental variable out of the equation and show me that they still oppose it. Afterall, the claim is that they are just anti-progress, right?
And imagine if we couldn't. Imagine if the only developmental proposals they ever opposed were the ones that posed a threat to the environment. Well, that would be ruinous for our cynical explanation. It would strongly favor the sincere explanation. That's why (A) is necessary.
b
People whose real ██████ ██ ██ █████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ██ ████████ ██████ ███ ██ ████████ █████ ████ ████████
(B) points in the right direction, it’s just too strongly worded – change “always” to “sometimes” and you’re golden.
The author does need “disguising motives” to be a thing that sometimes happens. If it’s a thing that never happens, the argument is screwed.
But the author doesn’t need it to happen every time. It’s totally fine if some anti-development environmentalists somewhere else aren’t trying to disguise their true motives – all that matters to the author is that these environmentalists are trying to disguise their true motives.
c
Anyone who opposes ████████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █████████
This would vaguely strengthen the argument if it were true – it would be a helpful principle to conclude the environmentalists are anti-progress – but it’s far too strong to be necessary. Change “anyone” to “some people” and you’re getting closer.
d
The council has ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ████ ███████████ █████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ███████████████ ██████ ██ ██████████████ █████████
This would be relevant if the author’s conclusion were “the council should therefore approve the Golden Lake Development proposal.”
The author’s actual argument, however, is about whether the environmentalists are in fact motivated by environmental concerns. Other considerations that the council might or might not consider are irrelevant to this much more narrow topic.
e
When people say ████ ████ ██████ █ ███████████ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ████████ █████ ████ ███████ ██████ ██████ ████ ██████████
(E) points in the right direction, it’s just too strongly worded – change “almost always” to “sometimes” and you’re golden.
The author does need it to sometimes be true that people say one thing when they’re secretly concerned about something else. If no one ever does that, the argument is screwed.
But the author doesn’t need everyone who opposes development projects to always have secret ulterior motives. It’s totally fine if a few environmentalists somewhere else are being genuine in their environmental objections – all that matters to the author is that these environmentalists have secret ulterior motives.