PT120.S1.Q17 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11

PASSAGE 3

Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18

PASSAGE 4

Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that designating land as a wilderness area can be consistent with the multiple-use philosophy. (Which is that natural resources should be used in the way that best serves the public’s needs.) Why? Because they can provide the most overall benefit, even when they don’t provide the most financial returns.

The author’s argument relies on conflating the multiple-use philosophy’s understanding of public benefit with the benefits of wilderness designation. He views the non-financial benefits of designating land as wilderness areas as potentially providing the most overall value. But what if the public needs underlying the multiple-use philosophy are purely financial?

The author must therefore assume that non-financial considerations are relevant to the multiple-use philosophy.

The author’s argument is about whether wilderness designation does in fact contradict the multiple-use philosophy. He doesn’t make any statements about whether this philosophy should be followed.

This isn’t relevant to the author’s argument. His contention is that wilderness designation can provide the greatest overall benefit by multiple-use standards. It isn’t that wilderness designation will solve every conceivable environmental problem.

The author’s argument is only that wilderness designation can be consistent with the multiple-use philosophy. He gives no indication that the current number of wilderness areas is insufficient by multiple-use standards.

The negation is: Multiple-use philosophy only takes into account financial needs. If this were the case, wilderness designation could not be consistent with multiple-use, since it sometimes prioritizes non-financial considerations. This undermines the author’s reasoning.

The author only contends that both future and present needs are considered under multiple-use; the balance between them is not relevant to his argument.

PrepTest 120 - Section 1 - Question 17

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action