PT12.S4.Q24 - The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy

BlueRiceCake

Im not sure I understand the stimulus, i picked E because I thought it was circular reasoning. Even after analyzing it for a while I'm not sure what the stimulus is saying...

6jellies

Yeah, I chose E too. I think the main thing to focus on for this one is that the last sentence is the conclusion, and the conclusion itself notes that its premises (that monetary value is needed to compare costs and benefits, but that monetary value also cannot be assigned without using costs and benefits) get in each other's way.

Scott Milam

@BlueRiceCake

As with most LR questions, the key is identifying the conclusion and its support. In this case, I would summarize the argument as:

CONCLUSION
Environmental economics is self-contradictory

PREMISES
People cannot compare costs and benefits of environmental factors
Environmental econ. requires assigning monetary value to environmental factors.
Monetary value results from people comparing costs and benefits.

(A) fills the gap nicely by supplying the necessary assumption. The argument is not circular, though it "feels" that way since it uses similar terms at the beginning at the end.

However, don't worry too much if you didn't get this one. This question type is rarely seen on the modern LSAT, and is almost never phrased this way anymore.