So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake

Question

So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?

(A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment.

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives.

(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress.

(D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns.

(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere.

broall · Accepted Answer

OE from Kaplan:

For all the verbiage of the question stem, all we really need to do is to find the assumption that will make the author’s argument valid, and we’ve already seen from the previous question what’s missing from the argument: The author questions the environmentalists’ argument against the development on the basis of the fact that they’ve objected to just about every other development plan in the past, but we don’t know if these were valid objections or not because we don’t know the circumstances of the objections. The author believes these objections were based not on the facts but on the environmentalists’ agenda. If, in fact, some or all of these objections are shown to be invalid, then she may have a legitimate point, and it would be more reasonable to believe that they really aren’t all that concerned with the migration patterns. (A) works in this vein: It tells us that, indeed, not every proposal was challenged because it posed a threat to the environment. If we add the sentiment in (A) to the mix, then our author has good reason to doubt the validity of their claim.

(B) The assumption that development-blockers always disguise their motives is neither reasonable nor helpful in this context. It’s not necessary to say that all development-blockers disguise their motives in order to argue that these people may be doing that.

(C) goes way too far—we don’t know anything about people who oppose “unrestricted development,” so any assumptions about them won’t help the author’s argument.

(D)’s out as well, since other reasons for objecting to the development are totally beyond the scope. They won’t help the author at all. In fact, if anything, (D) suggests that the environmentalists’ professed concern for the birds is genuine.

(E) is too vague, since it talks about people who oppose development on environmental grounds in general, while we’re concerned with this specific group. Furthermore, the explanation that their concern almost always lies elsewhere is too vague to pin this rap on the environmentalists in question.

• Notice that this is the last of five—count em’, five!—double-question stimuli on this section. That’s fairly high for an LSAT Logical Reasoning section. But remember that every double-question stimuli presents an opportunity to get two points for the price of one, so you should welcome these and look to use your work on the first question to help you work through the second.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) Yes.  The point of the argument is that because the environmentalists almost always oppose development projects they cannot be merely concerned about the environment. This assumes that the environmentalists opposed some of the projects for other than environmental reasons.

(B) No. This is too strong. In other cases, opponents of development might be very forthright.

(C) No. This does not relate to the issue of the environment.

(D) No. Whether there are other reasons to oppose the development project is not mentioned in the passage. Besides, other independent reasons would not affect the environmentalists’ argument.

(E) No. This is too strong. The point of the argument is that because the environmentalists almost always oppose development projects they cannot be merely
concerned about the environment. The passage hinges on the  pattern  of opposition, not on opposition to any particular project.

Octobre · Answer

B?
B would imply that all their environmental objections are just there to conceal their anti development goals?

achintya121 · Answer

Is it C? As it implies that whenever someone opposes a plan they are against progress?

Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

Sanjeetgujrall · Answer

IMO B

Negating it: People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed never try to disguise their true motives. 
Breaks the conclusion

sunny91 · Answer

Hi broall,
Can u please confirm the OA. To me the answer seems B. But the OA is A. If possible can u kindly explain the answer choice A

Kritisood · Answer

Hi  ScottTargetTestPrep , I solved this question with your approach, took a good 5 mins to understand it. The below was my reasoning. Do let me know if this is correct:

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives. 
We dont know why and how exactly they disguise their true motives. Here, we are only concerned with the the "so called environmentalists".

(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere. 
Again "people" and "lies elsewhere" is vague and doesnt touch our point of "environmentalists"

Ans choice A solves these two queries.

Thanks

ScottTargetTestPrep · Answer

Hi Kritisood.

I think you went too far in saying that the statements don't 'touch our point of "environmentalists."' The environmentalists are certainly people who "say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds." So, the category of people mentioned in (E) could include the environmentalists, and even (B) could be connected to the environmentalists, though that (B) is connected to the environmentalists is certainly not clear.

So, topic or "scope" does not fully support eliminating choices (B) and (E).

What does support eliminating those choices is that neither choice says something NECESSARY for connecting the argument's evidence to its conclusion.

It is not HAVE to be the case that people whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed ALWAYS try to disguise their true motives, in order for the evidence to support the conclusion that the environmentalists are disguising their true motives. Even if such people only SOMETIMES disguise their true motives, the environmentalists could be doing so.

Similarly, it does not HAVE to be the case that, when people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern ALMOST ALWAYS lies elsewhere in order for the evidence to support the conclusion that the environmentalists' true concern is not the bird migration patterns. It merely has to be the case that, IN THIS ONE CASE, the real concern of the people who say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds lies elsewhere.

Now, let's consider choice (A). In order for the argument to work, does it have to be the case that, as (A) says, not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment. For sure it does, because, if it were the case that EVERY time the environmentalists opposed a development proposal they truly believed it to pose a threat to the environment, then the environmentalists would not have been masking an agenda, and so, the evidence presented would not support the conclusion drawn.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake Development would interfere with bird-migration patterns. - concern of the environmentalists. 
However, the fact that these same people have raised environmental objections to virtually every development proposal brought before the council in recent years indicates that their expressed concern for bird-migration patterns is nothing but a mask for their anti-development, anti-progress agenda. - Claim that the real concern is "their anti-development, anti-progress agenda." Its as if I give the same reason for every situation, means my real intentions are different. But this assumes that the same reason can't be my real reason. 
Their claim, therefore, should be dismissed without further consideration. - Conclusion. What should be dismissed? Lake development should not interfere with bird migration.

For the claim that the concern expressed by the so-called environmentalists is not their real concern to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?

The assumption for what? Assumption for sentence 2. The real concern is something else: an "anti-development, anti-progress agenda."

What is an assumption? Missing premise, or a minimum condition

Option Elimination -

(A) Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose a threat to the environment. - Basically, this sentence means "some were opposed because of other reasons." Perfect. That what we need.

(B) People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to disguise their true motives. - the subset of "People whose real agenda is to block development" is out of scope.

(C) Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent of progress. - out of scope. We need to find a missing premise for a claim that the real reason is something else and not the birds.

(D) The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the development’s effect on bird-migration patterns. - Distortion. First we are not worries about the council, we are concerned about environmentalists. Second at best its a weakener.

(E) When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern almost always lies elsewhere. - Restating the premises. Not an assumption.

So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

So-called environmentalists have argued that the proposed Golden Lake

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards