The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy is the following: people making economic decisions cannot rea...

Mazen February 2, 2020

I am sorry I just realized that I could have used shorter symbols. Nevertheless, Am I correct in my diagramming and that answer-choice A is a restatement of the conclusion in the argument "Thus, environmental economics is stymied by what motivates it"?

Mazen February 3, 2020

Hello,

As I understood the argument:

"The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy is the following: people making economic decisions cannot readily compare environmental factors, such as clean air and the survival of endangered species, with other costs and benefits," (~~PMEDCEFCB).

"As environmental economists recognize, solving this problem [which is (~~PMEDCEFCB) REQUIRES assigning monetary values to environmental factors (AMVEF)." Solving ~~PMEDCEFCB means PMEDCEFCB. So:

PMEDCEFCB ----------> AMVEF
~~AMVEF ----------->~~PMEDCEFCB. (Contrapositive)

"But monetary values (AMVEF) result from people comparing costs and benefits in order to arrive at economic decisions (PMEDCEFCD)."

AMVEF ------------> PMEDCEFCB

"Thus, environmental economics is stymied by what motivates it." Meaning what motivates solving the problem, which is ~~PMEDCEFCB, is AMVEF which is itself denied by the absence of PMEDCEFB (~~PMEDCEFCB). In other words, what gives life to AMVEF is PMEDCEFCB which is the very thing to which life is given by AMVEF.

We either have both or neither. We cannot have one without the other!

Answer choice "A" is : strongly, on the assumption that monetary values for environmental factors cannot be assigned (~~AMVEF) unless people make economic decisions about these factors (PMEDCEFCB); diagrammed as follows: AMVRF ----------> PMEDCEFCB. which is the conclusion.

In retrospect, am I correct in my diagramming and that answer-choice A is a restatement of the conclusion in the argument "Thus, environmental economics is stymied by what motivates it"?

Ravi February 5, 2020

@Mazen,

Great question. This is a very rare question type that's essentially
asking us to evaluate the strength of the argument.

I wouldn't diagram this question, as the language used isn't conducive
to diagramming easily. I would instead focus on understanding what's
being said and go from there. The argument is pretty solid, as it's
saying that environmental economics requires assigning monetary
values, and monetary values are derived from individuals comparing
costs and benefits. We know from the stimulus that we cannot compare
costs and benefits from environmental factors, and if we cannot assign
monetary values, then we do not have any environmental economics.

This logic is pretty good, but there is one key assumption it
requires. The argument is assuming that monetary values require
comparing costs and benefits. However, all that the argument states is
that monetary values result from comparing costs and benefits, but
this does not mean that they could not result from another type of
process. And, since there theoretically could be another way to assign
monetary values, this argument is not valid.

In the answer choices, we're looking for the answer choice that points
out the assumption we identified. This assumption, if granted, would
ensure the conclusion of the argument.

(A) says, "strongly, on the assumption that monetary values for
environmental factors cannot be assigned unless people make economic
decisions about these factors"

(A) looks great because if we grant the assumption that assigning
monetary values requires an economic consideration and weighing of the
costs and benefits (referred to as "economic decisions"), then the
argument is a good one, so (A) is the correct answer choice.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

Mazen February 6, 2020

Ravi, it does make sense. To your point that it's better to approach this type of argument with common sense, rather than technical diagramming, I asked my wife (who never had an interest in the Lsat as her inclinations tend to be more medical) to answer it. She got it correctly on her first try. Not withstanding that it took her 7 minutes, it's a testament that we don't leave our common sense logic at the door.
Thank you Ravi