PT28.S3.Q08 - some environmentalists question

extramedium

My big issue with this question is about why B is the correct answer. It seems to equate "exploiting" with "destroy" and I'm not sure how reasonable of an assumption that is to make. Since this is a logically inferred question, I assumed that the right answer would have a higher degree of validity than an MSS answer choice.

But answer B, the right answer, seems to combine the two groups of environmentalists into one group, and I'm not sure that's implied anywhere in the argument. Noneconomic justification appears in the second sentence with the many group. The defensibility of exploiting features appear in the previous sentence with the some group.

How are we to infer that we have to combine these groups? Does it have to do with the economic costs in the last part of the second sentence?
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-08/

inactive

Bumping this to the top so more people can see

AllezAllez21

First off, I'll just run through why the other answers are clearly wrong.

A is because economic imprudence is not discussed.
C is because "most."
D is because "only."
E is because "sound."

For me, the assumptions that B brings to the table are reasonable assumptions for a college graduate to make. Exploiting the environment for resources can often destroy elements of that environment. We know this from general knowledge. If you cut down trees in a forrest, those trees are no longer there. If you mine coal out of a mountain, you are destroying part of the mountain. Also, in the first sentence it is implied that exploitation leads to destruction because of the use of the phrase "that no longer exist." This phrase implies that exploitation would lead to eventual elimination of such environments.

extramedium

@AllezAllez21

Ok the second part of your explanation makes a lot of sense. When you combine "exploitation" and "no longer exist," that's definitely a safer leap to "destroy." Thanks.