PT87.S3.Q20 - Although allowing coal mining

N3rve_333-1

I have an issue with AC A because I don't see how the argument's sub-conclusion draws from the stated claim. It seems to me that there is a need for an unstated assumption - something along the lines of "heavy industrial activity rids a region of its natural beauty". The part of the claim about dependence on natural beauty is a necessary condition for the operation of many local businesses. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but in order for the claim to be "direct" evidence for the argument's sub-conclusion, doesn't this sub-conclusion have to invoke the notion of how natural beauty would be tarnished in the presence of industrial activity? Without this notion, there could be many reasons why coal mining would force the majority of local businesses to close, one of which being (perhaps) the more lucrative or stable business opportunity of starting your own coal mine.

Also, it seems to me that the same unstated assumption mentioned above, needed (in my opinion) to classify the claim as "direct" evidence for the argument's sub-conclusion, can analogously be used to classify the claim as "direct" evidence for the argument's main conclusion: if coal mining harms natural beauty, then it seems reasonable to expect that coal mining would reduce the number of jobs since many local businesses depend on natural beauty.

Would appreciate any thoughts on this.

Admin note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-3-question-20/

Michael.Cinco

I don't think the presence of an unstated assumption about heavy industrial activity being detrimental to a region's natural beauty affects whether or not the statement 'many local Businesses depend on a region's natural beauty' directly supports the following statement 'and the heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force most of them (the local businesses) to close'. Sure there could be OTHER reasons why the businesses closed, but the first statement (even if it needs an assumption) gives you a reason why they are.

The idea being tested here is how the argument is structured , the former statement still directly supports the latter regardless of the assumption needed to make that leap.

Accordingly even with your assumption in place. The statement 'many local businesses depend on our regions natural beauty' still does not offer direct support for the conclusion. Many local businesses depending our regions natural beauty needs the following statement to impact jobs which is what our conclusion is about.

Again from a structural perspective the argument flows Idea A therefore B, B therefore C. The assumptions don't really change that.

N3rve_333-1

I can only see the first clause of the last sentence as evidence for the sub-conclusion if I make the aforementioned assumption; otherwise, the first clause sounds like a random fact that has no bearing on the strength of the sub-conclusion. After reading the sub-conclusion, asking "why?", and then reading the first clause, I am not convinced that it does anything unless I make the connection - once again, the aforementioned assumption.

Not the least of my concerns is the word "direct": if it's the only evidence presented (supposedly) to support the sub-conclusion, why pose it as "direct"? Is this a trick LSAT uses to mess with people?

Lastly and most importantly, what's the distinction between evidence vs. direct evidence vs. premise/support? Does evidence present support on its own merit or does it need to be applied to have such effect?

Very much appreciate it btw.

Michael.Cinco

Lets tackle the usage of the word direct.

I think they used that word because of how similar Answer Choice A and B are

Imagine if you remove the word Direct from answer choice B, then no matter how you view the structure of the argument A + B therefore C or A therefore B therefore C, B would be the correct answer choice because it would encapsulate both choices.

It has less of a dramatic effect on AC A but hammers home the point that the structure is A therefore B therefore C.

Now getting back to your main point.

Answer Choice A does not ever say that it is strong evidence of the sub-conclusion. Only that it is direct evidence of the subconclusion. The fact that you need to make an assumption to get to that point means it's fairly weak evidence for the subconclusion, but evidence nonetheless. What we cannot do on the LSAT is make nonsensical assumptions. Is the assumption that the heavy industrial activity of coal mining would be detrimental to the regions natural beauty a non-sensical one? I don't think so, I think it's fairly reasonable.

So we are allowed to make that assumption which ultimately is just an unstated premise in the argument. As a thought experiment think about this: Is answer choice A affected if the assumption was actually stated outright in the argument? No, it becomes a stronger argument but A never speaks to how strong or valid the argument is.

LizibethBennet

Thank you so much for this! I had the same question and your responses are wonderful. If I am correct so very simply the statement "many local businesses depend on our regions natural beauty" provides evidence as to why industrial mining would force them to close. Would have been easier if they provided us with a therefore "many local businesses depend on our regions natural beauty therefore industrial mining would force them to close.

N3rve_333-1

Had to think about what you said in your response for a while, but it makes sense. AC B most certainly does not offer "direct" evidence, and we actually need the sub-conclusion to give support to the main one. I got caught up in this question's word usage which made me suspicious of what the top two answer choices actually meant. Whatever the strength of AC A is, it is evidence.

Thank you.

rbreville

For this question here, I am trying to define how the LSAT define "Evidence" or "Direct Evidence". Ive noticed this term in a few questions. Can someone help define it for me? #HELP #JY

NickyDal

Sorry for bumping into an old conversation. I see your point about the need for an unstated assumption for the argument's sub-conclusion to draw from the stated claim. The idea of natural beauty being tarnished by heavy industrial activity is undoubtedly a fundamental assumption necessary to connect the claim to the sub-conclusion. However, drilling projects can improve our lives, so I am buying UPET drilling rigs soon. Let me know if you're interested in how it goes!