Home LSAT Prep LSAT Message Board
October 2001 LSAT Section 1 Question 18

The current pattern of human consumption of resources, in which we rely on nonrenewable resources, for example metal ...

medasmx@protonmail.com on December 19, 2021

B versus D

D says cant increase non-renewable indefinitely. B says cant replace non-renewable with non-renewable. I dont see any difference. The stimulus says metal ore wont last forever and you either will go without metal ore or you will use renewable. To me saying that metal ore will not increase indefinitely is reasonable.

Replies
Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on January 16, 2022

Hi @medasmx, this is a strengthen with necessary, so we are looking for something that the author must have assumed in order for their argument to make sense.

D may be a consequence of the argument, but it does not have to be true for the argument to be true, as the argument does not specify a timeframe and D does.

However, if B were not the case we would be able to substitute one non renewable resource for another. For example, we could replace coal with oil, and then with natural gas. If we were able to do this then the conclusion would no longer make sense. Therefore, the author must have assumed B.

Emil-Kunkin on January 16, 2022

Hi @medasmx, this is a strengthen with necessary, so we are looking for something that the author must have assumed in order for their argument to make sense.

D may be a consequence of the argument, but it does not have to be true for the argument to be true, as the argument does not specify a timeframe and D does.

However, if B were not the case we would be able to substitute one non renewable resource for another. For example, we could replace coal with oil, and then with natural gas. If we were able to do this then the conclusion would no longer make sense. Therefore, the author must have assumed B.

Emil-Kunkin on January 16, 2022

Hi @medasmx, this is a strengthen with necessary, so we are looking for something that the author must have assumed in order for their argument to make sense.

D may be a consequence of the argument, but it does not have to be true for the argument to be true, as the argument does not specify a timeframe and D does.

However, if B were not the case we would be able to substitute one non renewable resource for another. For example, we could replace coal with oil, and then with natural gas. If we were able to do this then the conclusion would no longer make sense. Therefore, the author must have assumed B.