PT34.S2.Q18 - mp editorialist: the position advanced by

ychoi4

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-18/

18. Editorialist: The positions advanced by radical environmentalists often contain hypotheses that are false and proposals that are economically infeasible. But there is a positive role to be played even by these extremists, for the social and political inertia that attends environmental issues is so stubborn that even small areas of progress can be made only if the populace fears environmental disaster, however untenable the reasons for those fears may be.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the editorialist’s argument?
(A) The little progress that has been made in improving the environment is mainly due to the fear created by radical environmentalists.
(B) Radical environmentalists, by promoting their views, stimulate progress on environmental issues.
(C) Social and political inertia is most effectively overcome by an extremely fearful populace, regardless of whether its fears are well-founded.
(D) Radical environmentalists often put forth untenable positions in order to produce the fear that is required to bring about moderate reforms.
(E) Radical environmentalists advocate positions without regard for factual support or economic feasibility.

I am debating between A and B...
Why can't A be the correct answer choice? Is it because of the word mainly? or is it because answer choice (a) is saying that fear is the sufficient condition for the little progress to be made while the stimulus is saying that fear is the necessary condition for the progress?

Also, D seemed a little bit tricky but I eliminated that since we don't really know from reading the stimulus alone that environmentalists purposely said false things to create fear.. Is this the right way of thinking?

The correct answer choice is B, by the way. Thank you in advance!

GSU Hopeful

I think you're on the right track about the reasons to eliminate A. The overall main point is that radical environmentalists CAN bring about and stimulate progress on their issues. It would be hard to draw the inference that this stimulation is MAINLY due to the fear created by the environmentalists, let alone being able to say its the main conclusion. If you can't even draw the inference of an answer choice, how can you even begin to think its the main point? You can't. Furthermore, "little progress" in the AC creates a problem because we don't know that little progress has been made. All we are told is that small areas of progress CAN be made if the populace fears disaster. We aren't told whether or not any progress has been made. (A) requires you to assume something that we have no basis or support for. Anything that requires this is really hard to justify as being the correct answer choice in a MP question. How do we know that little progress has been made? On the face of the stimulus alone, we don't.

(D) presents us with the same the problem. Its a mish mash of words that totally twists around what the stimulus is really saying. We really aren't told what kinds of positions the radical environmentalists put forward or why they are being put forward. The answers choice is unsupported and therefore cannot be the main conclusion.

Hope this helps.

lois.s.ahn

@"GSU Hopeful" this is a great explanation! Really helped clear things up for me. I have a question regarding answer choice (E), if you don't mind helping me out.

Answer choice (E) says, "Radical environmentalists advocate positions without regard for factual support or economic feasibility," and JY, in his video explanation for this question, said that this is a reiteration of the first sentence in the stimulus ("The positions advanced by radical environmentalists often contain hypotheses that are false and proposals that are economically infeasible."). I personally thought that answer choice (E) is unsupported by the stimulus because we just know that radical environmentalists' positions often contain false hypotheses and proposals that are economically infeasible, but I didn't think that was good enough for us to accept (E) as true (that they advocate positions with no regard for factual support or economic feasibility). What do you think?

Sorry for this verbose question. Really interested in knowing what you think!