Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting

A) is wrong because it is too strong of a claim. The prompt only says that "SOME environmentalists environmentalists QUESTION the prudence of exploiting features of the environment", so it would be too much to infer this

B) Since the prompt states that "Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features" it would be logical to infer that Some appeal to noneconomic justifications

C) is wrong because again it goes to far. There is nothing in the propt that would allow us to infer anything about most scientists

D) is wrong because just because many environmentalists provide noneconomic justification doesn't mean that is the ONLY justification they provide

E) is wrong because it outside the scope. There is nothing in the propt that allows us to determine what would be a sound justification or not, there is no mention of the sort.

Thus, the answer choice is B. This question is a great example of how the simplest answer that is closest to the prompt can often be the correct one.

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.

SOME – favour to destroy. Basis is cost.
MANY – do not favour to destroy. Ignores the cost.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?

(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
If some people the prudence of something, would you ever say it is imprudent. If five student in your class doubt that you would get 700+ in GMAT, would you ever infer that you cannot get 700+ in GMAT? NO!

(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
We can infer SOME from MANY.

(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
Most is wrong here. You cannot make say if some or many people say something then MOST people say or not say that.

(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
Yes it happens and is given but ONLY this happens cannot be proven. Only is wrong here. Many environmentalists give noneconomic reason but they give ONLY that reason is not something which is stated anywhere. so it cannot be inferred.

(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
Sound is wrong here. If MANY people give a non-economic reason then it does not mean it is a SOUND reason.

Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?

(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound non economic justification for doing so.

Good question.
This is an inference question. So we must strictly adhere to only the facts or premises provided and combine them to make a logical inference.

Here is my analysis.

(A) The passage only states that some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment. Hence to say that it's economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment is an extreme claim. (B) Yes. The non economic justification here is that claim by the environmentalists that nature has intrinsic value. Furthermore. The word 'Some' makes it a safe inference
(C) The choice can be eliminated because of the word 'Most' makes it somewhat extreme. There is clearly a difference between 'Many' environmentalists claiming xyz and 'Most' environmentalists claiming xyz
(D) The word 'Only' should set of a red flag immediately. Environmentalists could provide other justifications as well.
(E) Not necessary. This is an extreme claim. There could be a variety of justifications.

The best choice is B.

Cheers !!

the question says "many environmentalists ....... intrinsic value" ---> this is clearly a non-eco justification. so, we have "many"
B says "Some"

i can think of 2 reasons why B shd be chosen:

1. using POE the only choice remaining is B. however, that the answer uses "Some" will make me nervous about clicking B in the exam.

2. or, that since "some" < "many" implies that IT MUST BE TRUE

I would like comments on #2....

thanks

Mansoor50 Please find my comments in line for ur statements. hope they will be helpful.

1. using POE the only choice remaining is B. however, that the answer uses "Some" will make me nervous about clicking B in the exam. ----- First why nervous for the use of 'Some' in this case. In fact in most of the inference questions you can make your mind just cause the use of 'Some'.

2. or, that since "some" < "many" implies that IT MUST BE TRUE --- No this is NOT true. some/most defines the scope of your statements. if 1 person is doing what statement says then its some. and in most of the cases finding that one person is really easy. And so making the conclusion out of it.

I think you should try to understand the meaning of every choice and define its scope and think how it can be wrong. if not keep it for last. if you left with two choices and you cant decide, choose the one with smaller scope.

Could anyone please explain the argument ? I didn't understand at all ...

Hi suelahmed,
I will give a try,

The argument has two long sentences.

1. SOME environmentalists are questioning "whats wrong with exploiting the features of environment?" There are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.

These SOME environmentalists reasoned by mentioning the economic costs

2.MANY environmentalists claim that nature...blah..blah...blah

These MANY environmentalists reasoned that nature...blah..blah...blah:NOTHING ABOUT ECONOMIC COSTS

HERE SOME =MANY=1 to ALL.
Most = greater than 50% to ALL


We are not judging anything here.Its out of scope.eliminate it.

Here, the MANY environmentalists group talked about that nature...blah..blah...blah and ignored the economic costs. Keep it.

Strong .given in the argument that some of the environmentalists talked about economic costs.So, SOME can be 1 or SOME can be all.
so not possible.eliminate it.

Mentioned only!!we dont know that the only reason or not.eliminate it

OUT of scope.
eliminate E.

B is the winner.
Hope it helps
Thank you

First, I believe this is an LSAT-type passage that is unlikely to appear on the actual GMAT. However, the takeaway from this question is to always pay attention to key details and notice the effect a slight word change has on meaning. In that sense, the question is good practice.

Without using formal logic, you can get to the correct answer by process of elimination.

First, the focus should be on understanding what the question stem asks us to do. We are asked to find something that can be inferred from the facts in the passage. We are not looking for a logically supported opinion-type conclusion, but rather an inference that can be proven true with 100% certainty based on the facts provided.

Because of this, watch out for extreme language. If an answer choice contains such language, the statements in the passage must provide pretty strong support.

(A) says it IS economically imprudent to do X.

The passage only tells us what “some” and then what “many” environmentalists BELIEVE. Just because many people believe something does not necessarily make it true. Therefore, we can not infer that X IS economically imprudent based on what some or many environmentalists believe.

(C) “MOST environmentalists appeal to .....”

Without going any further, the passage only tells us what “some” and then “many” environmentalists believe. “MANY” does not necessarily mean “MOST.” On this basis alone, answer C can be eliminated.


(D) “Many environmentalists provide ONLY a non economic justification.....”

We are told that many environmentalists believe it would be wrong to destroy certain features of the environment because of its intrinsic value. They believe this is true even when weighing the economic costs.

While the core of these environmentalists’ argument is “non economic” (i.e., nature’s intrinsic value), they do believe this argument stands even in the face of an “economic weighing” of the costs of action against the costs of non-action. It’s hard to infer that they ONLY provide a non economic justification.

Furthermore, just because we are told that many environmentalists believe that nature has an intrinsic, non-economic value, this does not necessarily mean this is the ONLY argument they provide. They may provide further economic reasons not mentioned in the statements. We can not infer with 100% certainty that this is the ONLY justification they provide.

Therefore, we can not say answer D must be true based on the statements.

(E)”.........., there IS a SOUND non-economic justification....”

Again, the facts tell us what some and many environmentalists BELIEVE. Essentially, we are given their opinion-like arguments.

Whether these arguments are SOUND goes beyond the scope of the statements. We can not infer with 100% certainty whether the justifications they provide are “sound”.

This leaves answer (B): “Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification....”

This inference can be supported just by the second statement, which says that many economists believe it is wrong to destroy parts of nature because of its “intrinsic value.”

Based on this statement alone, we can make the inference that some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification.

(B)

Posted from my mobile device

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Answer (B).

The “Some environmentalists question...” construction at the start of the stimulus does not lead to the usual counter- conclusion because the stimulus does not contain an argument. This is a very interesting stimulus because the author repeats the opinions of others and never makes an assertion of his or her own. When a stimulus contains only the opinions of others, then in a Must Be True question you can eliminate any answer choice that makes a flat assertion without reference to those opinions.

For example, answer choice (A) makes a factual assertion (“It is...”) that cannot be backed up by the author’s survey of opinions in the stimulus—the opinions do not let us know the actual facts of the situation.

Answer choice (E) can be eliminated for the very same reason. Answer choices (B), (C), and (D) each address the environmentalists, and thus each is initially a Contender.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. The second sentence references the views of many environmentalists, who claim that “nature has intrinsic value” (for example, beauty). This view is the non-economic justification cited by the answer choice. This answer can be a bit tricky because of the convoluted language the test makers use. “Questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment” is a needlessly complex phrase. A more direct manner of writing that phrase would be “attacking the exploitation of the environment.” To increase the difficulty of this problem, this language was then repeated in answer choices (C) and (D).

Answer choice (C): We only know the opinions of “some” and “many” environmentalists, and these numbers do not provide enough information to discern the views of “most” environmentalists, which is the term used in the answer choice (“many” is not the same as “most”).

Answer choice (D): This answer choice cannot be proven. While we know that many environmentalists claim a non-economic justification, we do not know that that is the only justification they provide. When you are reading a stimulus, keep a careful watch on the statements the author offers as fact, and those that the author offers as the opinion of others. In a Must Be True question, the difference between the two can sometimes be used to eliminate answer choices.

MartyTargetTestPrep and AndrewN, I would love to hear your take on this question.

Hello, kntombat. I cannot speak for Marty, but this one just clicked for me. All the wrong answers had patent traps, and as soon as I laid eyes on the correct answer, I knew I had it—I could not find anything to argue against. My take on each answer choice, along with the passage for reference:


I say this all the time in my tutoring, but watch out for judgmental language. Sure, some of the environmentalists from the passage might support this notion, but nowhere does the passage itself make such a definitive statement. We cannot thus infer that the passage would support the statement.


This sounds a lot like what we see in the final line of the passage:

Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value...

To say that something holds intrinsic value means that it possesses value on its own, without another party projecting value onto it. The description could refer to the aesthetic value of nature, the evolutionary marvel of it all, or just about anything associated with nature. A noneconomic justification that some environmentalists, not necessarily the author of the passage, stand behind to make their point sounds perfect, since it is just what we see in the passage. This is a terrific answer.


Just as I cautioned earlier about watching for judgmental language, I would offer the same advice on superlatives, words ending in -st (e.g., the best, most, fastest). Based on the passage, we can provide some insight into what some or even many environmentalists would say about exploiting features of the environment, but we cannot qualify the use of most.


Only falls into the same extreme camp as a superlative. Words such as only, never, always, and even cannot often pop up in answer choices that seem perfectly reasonable but are nevertheless overreaching. We know that many environmentalists do indeed point to the intrinsic or noneconomic value of nature to make a claim, but does the passage say that those claims are one-dimensional, that they rely solely on such a justification? No, that is where the mind makes assumptions and fills in the gaps, the opposite of what we want to do in these types of questions.


Who is calling the justification sound here? Is that what the passage leads us to believe, or is it simply the view of many environmentalists? Honestly, if you were unsure of this one, since the last line of the passage may take some time to sort out, you could place it on hold and simply work with (B). That is, if (B) cannot be disputed, then it must be the answer; if you can find a hole in it, then choose this option instead, since the rest of the answer choices have already dropped from contention. Believe it or not, you can often go through the hardest questions in this manner, working from a place of comfort on just four of the five options, but you have to trust your method, or your accuracy will be all over the place. In any case, we can see this one off and feel even better about (B) above.

I hope that helps address your concerns. Thank you for bringing the question to my attention.

- Andrew

I'm not sure that I understand why answer E is wrong. The statements in the stimulus seem to support this answer. The wording does not seem too strong either. What am I missing? Please explain.